V' 



■J-i- 



^^-n^ 



"o V 



' : ^ ° 



"■ \^'^ -'Mm- \/ •^*^'- ^-^ "^ " 






J'^ 



^^s 









:^ -n^-n^ 






°o 






.^' 







.0 "■ ^ 




















^oP 




Church and State in the Reign of 
Louis PhiUppe 



1830-1848 



A DISSERTATION 

presented to the 

Faculty of Princeton University 

IN Candidacy for the Degree 

OF Doctor of Philosophy 



BY 

JOHN M. S. ALLISON 

INSTRUCTOR IN HISTORY IN YALE UNIVERSITY 



PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS 
PRINCETON 

LONDON: HUMPHREY MILFORD 
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 

1916 



Church and State in the Reign of 
Louis PhiUppe 



1830-1848 



A DISSERTATION 

presented to the 

Faculty of Princeton University 

IN Candidacy for the Degree 

OF Doctor of Philosophy 



A- 



JOHN M. S/ALLISON 

INSTRUCTOR IN HISTORY IN YALE UNIVERSITY 



PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS 
PRINCETON 

LONDON : HUMPHREY MILFORD 
OXFORD university PRESS 

1916 






Published July, 1916 

Accepted by the Department of History and Politics 
April, 1914 



Olf* 



H 'j 



Tl 



? 1916 




The author wishes to express his indebtedness to Professor 
Henry R. Shipman of Princeton University, whose constant 
interest and timely suggestions have been of invaluable assist- 
ance. He also wishes to acknowledge the services of the 
late Professor John H. Coney of Princeton, whose high 
ideals of scholarship and historical method will always be a 
source of inspiration toward more serious and conscientious 
effort. In addition he wishes to thank Professor Chauncey B. 
Tinker of Yale University for his kind assistance in the 
matter of proofreading and correction. 

J. M. S. A. 

New Haven, July 191 5. 



TO MY MOTHER 



- " CHAPTER I 

THE JULY MONARCHY 

The Period of the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Em- 
pire and the Bourbon Restoration offers a curious contrast, 
for it presents in the brief space of forty-one years the 
thoughts and actions of two centuries, the one the nineteenth, 
the other the eighteenth. The first was modern while the 
second, viewed in the light of present day conditions, seems 
almost mediaeval. It is an odd coincidence that the modern 
theories and ideals of the latter half of the eighteenth cen- 
tury were rejected in the era of Napoleon and it is only 
after the July Revolution that what are known as Nineteenth 
Century principles, those very theories on which the Revolu- 
tion was based, were expounded and put to practical use. 
The Revolution, then, did not end with the Congress of 
Vienna, nor, for that matter, with the July Revolution.^ 
Metternich and his satellites had deluded the French into 
accepting once more a Bourbon and had covered the reactionary 
medicine which they sought to administer to them with a 
coating of constitutionalism. But the Charter of 1814 had 
soon appeared in its true form, and became for the French 
a cause of disappointment in more ways than one, but prin- 
cipally because it had been an act of grace emanating from 
the monarch and granted by him to the people — "une charte 
octroyee." Then too it was a veiled deception, for its four- 
teenth article allowing the king to promulgate special laws 
in time of danger, had rendered null and void all the so-called 
liberties and political privileges granted to the people. H 
Louis XVni did not perceive its weakness and consequently 
his own increased power, this was not to be the case with 
his brother the Comte d'Artois (later Charles X). That reac- 
tionary prince had at once seen clearly the possibilities of the 
charter as affected by the article and seized upon the occasion 
of the assassination of the due d'Orleans to show his brother 

* de Crozales Guizot Intro. 10. 



the hidden usefuhiess of the document the alHes had nego- 
tiated for him. But the old monarch's days were numbered 
and he made little use of his newly discovered political me- 
dium; and soon to Charles X fell the heritage of the throne, 
the Charter and the Fourteenth Article. 

Supported by the returned emigres, envious and eagerly seek- 
ing compensation for their confiscated property, it was not 
long before the new king made way with the very slight 
vestiges of revolutionary privilege existing in the Restoration, 
then upheld by the old regime, the "Congregation de la rue 
du Bac" and the Holy Alliance, Charles X prepared to in- 
augurate a thorough policy of reaction. In the meantime, 
however, things had been happening under the surface to 
which the old king was blind, flattered as he was by his 
courtiers, by the unctuous praises of Metternich and the pious 
wishes of the Pope who sought an annulment of the hated 
Concordat. 

Another Revolution had taken place, this time not in the 
streets of Paris, but in the minds of her inhabitants and of 
the people of the provinces. Two forces were at work, one 
still nascent, the other on the verge of maturity. The former 
was religious, reformative, Jansenist in a way, yet tinged 
with a certain romantic mysticism that recalls the Molinists 
of the seventeenth century. And as this new train of re- 
ligious thought developed, the other movement, guided by 
men more active in the affairs of the world, seized upon it 
and applied its principles to politics. Thus almost simul- 
taneously arose La Mennais and the adherents of his school 
of ideas as set forth at La Chesnaie, and a notable phalanx 
of the governmental opposition distinguished principally by 
a small but efficient group known as the younger "Doctrinaires" 
and composed of such men as de Broglie, Guizot, Thiers and 
Mole, the apostles of a bourgeois rule and a policy of "juste 
milieu" so soon to come. 

The new movement for religious reform is easily accounted 
for. The cause was the obvious evils of the Concordat which 
restricted priestly activities and reduced the church to a state 
of entire subordination to the policy of the government. This 
new group, then, composed of men in accord, for the time 



being, with the Doctrinaires, were to seek to gain their poHtical 
privileges in an open and honest way, by a piibHc campaign. 
Charles X had placed the throne upon the altar and thereby 
had given rise to a dangerous sort of GalHcanism somewhat 
similar to that of the Empire but in no way resembling the 
pure GalHcanism of 1682. It was to the breaking up of this 
alliance and what must be its fatal consequences that the 
new party for religious reform directed its energies. But if, 
in their eyes, the good name of the church was smirched 
by the toleration of a bastard GalHcanism it was still further 
endangered by the ceaseless intrigues of the "petite figlise" 
or "parti pretre" composed of Ultramontanes and Jesuits, both 
of whom regretted the passing of the ancient regime with its 
comfortable privileges. This internal evil too, they must 
combat. The first intimation the clergy of France had re- 
ceived of such a movement had come from the abbe de La 
Mennais. It was "an appeal to abstain from intrigue: 

"Be bishops, be priests, nothing more. What are petty "^^^ 
quarrels of the world to you; quarrels in which men only Progres," 
engage for error and self-interest." 

But even as he wrote, it appeared to him that if France 
was to be saved, the clergy must do more than merely survey 
the course of events from their high station. And so farther 
on in the same book he calls them forth to prepare for a 
struggle not in the spirit of self-interest, but in that of 
humanity. For La Mennais was a prophet and could often- 
times forsee events with more clearness than the experienced 
doctrinaires. Realizing that the fall of the existing dynasty 
was near at hand he wished to have a party in readiness to 
support the church at that time. Like others, he feared that 
the church's time-worn policy of relying on the Bourbons 
might in the end draw it down to a fate such as they had 
suffered in 1789. He therefore sought a political theory which 
by its very essentials would allow of a union between the 
religious reformers and the better class of politicians. This, 
he believed, would save the church and France. 

"Si le liberalisme etait chretien, je serais liberal demain." E. Forgues 

He did not long search in vain. Already a moderate liberal La Mennais, 
party was in the field which was in accord with liberal catholic ^> ^4 
views and from which La Mennais had reason to hope for 

3 



much assistance. At one and the same time philosophical 
and political the theories of the Doctrinaires were rapidly 
coming into prominence. They find their origin in the experi- 
ences of some of their elders who had seen the Revolution 
and the Empire and who realized that the failure of these two 
institutions had come about through the lack of a set doctrine 
and a determined principle. Their basis was the correlation 
of three factors, a nation, a king, and a parliament. Not one, 
but all, were to make up the whole. The king alone cannot 
reign without the parliament and the nation. These three 
elements make possible the Law, which is the life of an in- 
stitution; to borrow a simile: "Neither wood, nor air, nor 
flint, taken separately is the unique principle of fire ; but when 
_ , they are properly related and appHed to a common effect, the 
102 ' flame bursts forth." 

Basing their views on a theory, then, this group headed by 
Guizot, Royer-Collard, de BrogHe, and for a time, Thiers had 
become known as the Theorists or Doctrinaires. The Globe 
was their political mouthpiece and was directed for the most 
part by younger men ; while de Remusat, Duchatel and Sainte- 
Beuve, all of them adherents of the "Jeunesse Liberale et 
Romantique," were counted among its contributors. 

With such views, it is not surprising to read that these 
Doctrinaires and the "ecole menaisienne" soon found mutual 
grounds of sympathy, and an alliance sprang up between the 
two — a union further cemented by their common approval of 
the expulsion of the Jesuits. And, while this combination 
would never have been powerful enough to instigate a revo- 
lution, nevertheless it was sufficiently strong to take advantage 
of an uprising when it did occur. This opportunity, further- 
more, was not far off and as early as 1827 one of the liberals 
had heralded its near approach in the following terms : 
E. Forgues "^ see that many are worrying about the Bourbons: they 

Corresp. de are not mistaken in so doing for I believe they will experience 
La Mennais, , r r 1 o mo 

3 Nov. 1827 the fate of the btuarts. - 

^ See also letter of d'Herbelot to Montalembert 9 Oct. 1824. "La 
Jeunesse Liberale: Lettres d'Herbelot." Later in another letter (E. 
Forges. Corresp. Lettre a M. de Champy) : La Mennais foretells 
"una nouvelle crise dans la Revolution qui n'a fait que commencer; 
bien qu'elle soit aussi vieille que moi." 



The years 1827-1829 witnessed the increase of poHtical 
tension and the rise of a genuinely hostile feeling towards 
the government. This condition should have warnjed the 
foolish king of his perilous situation ; but he seemed utterly 
oblivious to it. In 1830 the crash came; the dissolution of 
Parliament upon its reply to the King's address, Polignac's 
fatal move, the unfavourable elections, and the July Ordinances 
were all that were necessary to cause the more extreme 
malcontents to revolt and the "first emigre" to assume his 
familiar role and retire to England. A new era was pro- 
claimed for France, a new monarchy, and a new f.reedom. 

Politically the reign of Louis PhiHppe falls into four prin- 
ciple divisions; the period of Formation, lasting to the fall of 
the Laffitte Ministry in 183 1 ; the Period of Parliamentary 
Struggle, a time of the reformation and reorganization of 
political parties ending in the breach between Thiers and 
Guizot in 1836; this, in turn was followed by the Period of 
Parliamentary Rivalry and Decline, and the "last Period" 
which we will call the Transformation and Disorganization 
of the July Monarchy; eight years in all, during which time 
the government under the sole leadership of one man, Guizot, 
experienced a change foreign to its origin, and then fell. 

At the very outset the July Monarchy was threatened by a 
serious division, a sad augury for future times. The Legis- 
lative Body, now somewhat depleted by the hasty departure 
of certain timorous members, presented a curious aspect, com- 
posed, as it was, of a heterogeneous crowd of political idealists.^ 
A common agreement between them would have been im- 
possible. There was, for instance, a distinct line of difference 
between the deputies who met at the house of M. Laffitte, 
a prominent banker, and those who gathered at the Hotel de 
Ville under the control of La Fayette. The first party made 
up of prominent business men, favored some sort of a policy 

^ "L'opposition, comme il arrive presque toujours au lendemain des 
grandes commotions politiques, etait le refuge ouvert a tous les debris 
des partis vaincus : demagogues endurcis, ardents republicains, bonapar- 
tistes impatients d'une revanche, s'y rencontrent meles plutot qu'unis, 
car ils n'avaient reellement de commun qu'une profonde aversion pour 
ce qui personifiait a leurs yeux, I'ancien regime, c'est a dire, la cour, 
la noblesse, le clerge." Boutard 11. 24-25. 



of reconciliation with the family of Charles X, now at Ram- 
bouillet, while the group who had established themselves at 
the Hotel de Ville displayed marked tendencies toward 
Republicanism. But, uncertain of their strength, both hesi- 
tated to make a public declaration. Profiting by this delay 
another group, not definitely organized but distinguished by 
the adherence of a certain number of Doctrinaires, met at 
the house of Casimir Perier, also a prominent financier, and 
there, led by Guizot, Sebastiani and Villemain, they set to 
work upon a plan to organize a temporary form of government. 
The next day the Moniteur contained the following notice : 

"The deputies at Paris have been forced to come together 
^ in order to counteract the serious danger menacing the safety 
of the people and of property. 

"A committee has been appointed to watch over public in- 
terests in the absence of all regular organization. 
M. W. Comte Gerard 
Jacques Laffitte. 

,, ., Comte de Laban 

Mofittenr, 

29 et 30 Mauguin 

Juillet, 1830 Odier 

Casimir Perier 
de Schonen." 

The above list made official by a second publication the 
following day, is important for it shows what negotiations 
must have been carried out on the night preceding its pub- 
lication. It comprises men of different parties, but its main 
significance is the fact that it marks the temporary union of 
the two sections of Parliament convened at the houses of 
M. Laffitte and Casimir Perier. Events no longer moved 
slowly; a regent was soon appointed. 

It is difficult to ascertain just how the name of Louis 
Philippe was proposed. For some time he had been the hero 
of a certain group of politicians who were discontented and 
who were believed to have democratic tendencies. Then too, 
the Palais-Royal had long been the rendezvous for a rather 
heterogeneous clientele, and as such had been regarded by 
the family of Charles X as a by no means impossible menace 
to their security. There have been much talk and many 
anecdotes of the intrigue attending the nomination of Louis 

6 



Philippe to the French throne ; in all likelihood, however, these 
stories are mere fiction spun for the pleasure of the historical 
romancers, for there is very little evidence to indicate that L- -^'^"S^ 
the suggestion of the Duke of Orleans required any com- v. fhuVeau 
plicated or insidious wire-pulling on the part of his supporters. ^angin. 
His name was probably brought before the public in the same 
way that other names in other times had been proposed and 
accepted, at the critical moment, and by a man who understood 
only too well the time for a coup d'etat. In this instance, the 
promoter seems to have been Adolphe Thiers who, by launch- 
ing forth an unofficial proclamation caused Louis Philippe 
to be accepted as lieutenant-general of the realm. After much 
hesitation on his own part the Duke of Orleans was finally 
persuaded to come to Paris and to assume his duties. His 
journey to the Capitol, however, was but half the effort re- 
quired and when he arrived in Paris the Duke found that 
his most difficult part was yet to be played; he must con- 
ciliate, and then be accepted by, the Republicans who had 
not been consulted. This effort would bring with it a certain 
amount of personal danger, but having gone so far the Regent- 
elect was not to be turned back, and he determined on a 
personal visit to La Fayette. Accordingly he set out at once 
for the Hotel de Ville, accompanied by the deputies whose 
escort he accepted only upon their urgent request. The march 
to the Republican headquarters was not the calm affair some 
would have us believe; the mob was sullen, and even before 
the end of the journey gave vent to a genuinely hostile demon- 
stration, while the reception of the Orleanist couriers, sent 
in advance, was not the most cordial.* Shortly after the 
Duke's arrival occurred the historic scene on the balcony of 
the Hotel de Ville where, wrapped in the folds of the tri- 
colour. La Fayette, "homme aux indecisions"^ embraced the 
future king. The crowd cheered, flags waved, and by the 
weak act of an old man France was led to accept the Duke 

^ Metternich Memoirs I. 22 : Account of General Belliard. 

L. Blanc (Hist. I. 166) relates that when the envoy of Louis Phillipe 
arrived at the Hotel de Ville to warn La Fayette of the Duke's approach 
and to offer him terms of compromise, the old general cried out 
"Say not one word more of accommodation or I will call the people." 

' As Mirabeau called him. 



Proclama- as her deliverer and to believe his words — La Charte sera 
tion du due , . . , „ 

d'Orleans, desormais une verite. 

Moniteur^ Thus the mob, swayed by La Fayette, played their part and 
played it well, for it seems that the Orleanists believed as 
firmly in the free selection of Louis Philippe by the people of 
1830, as their over-credulous predecessors, the invaders of 
1814, did in the popularity of Louis XVIIL It now remained 
for the remnant of deputies in Paris to make the duke a 
king. There were, however, other questions antecedent to the 
choice of a king that must first be settled, otherwise they 
would have the same vexing problem of constitutional prero- 
gative to bring on another revolt. On the sixth of August 
all negotiations with the Bourbons were closed, and, on the 
motion of Berard, the amenable Chamber of Deputies declared 
the throne vacant. The revision of the constitution became 
the order of the day and this work, in turn, became the 
privilege of a few, who, profiting by the confusion in the 
Chambers, succeeded in presenting a charter conformable to 
their own wishes.® Four main revisions were made and these 
it is particularly our purpose to note. 

The first two alterations took the form of corrections and 
preventions of the evils in the charter of 1814. Charles X 
had produced the July Ordinances by virtue of Article Four- 
teen which allowed him to promulgate special laws of any 
character whatsoever in times of danger. This clause was 
suppressed. The preamble of the charter was the next clause 
attacked. By reason of its opening statement the Constitution 
of 1814 has become known as "la Charte octroyee," for, by it 
the charter became an act of grace coming from the monarch 
and conferred through his generosity and royal favour, when, 
in reality, the Charter had been intended to serve as a con- 
tract between sovereign and subject, a contract, furthermore 
submitted to him by the people. So at the outset two evils 
of the Restoration were abolished. The two other changes 
are important and curious as well, for, while they concern 

* "We cannot close our eyes to the fact that the Chamber of 
Deputies is pliable and does not understand its own policy. In their 
eyes they seem to think it is a question of mere change of cabinet 
and not of a revolution." d'Herbelot to Montalembert. 6 Aout 1830. 
Lettres d'Herbelot. 

8 



the social and religious welfare of the people, they became, 
nevertheless, through the absurd policy of the government, 
two evils that had almost the same effect on the July Monarchy 
that the Preamble and Fourteenth Article had exercised on 
the Restoration. Their content and purpose were excellent 
but as interpreted by the government, they soon became gross 
evils. One of the new articles declared that "the Clergy of 
the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Religion, professed by 
the majority of Frenchmen, and the clergy of other denomina- 
tions as well, shall receive salaries from the public treasury," 
while Article Sixty-Nine promised laws granting liberty of 
association, of the press and instruction.^ These four changes 
imply much and foreshadow what it was hoped would be the 
future policy of France. In brief, they present in a clear 
and concise form the very raison d'etre of the July Monarchy ; 
a break with the principles of the Holy Alliance. This rup- 
ture, in turn, involved many things: within the borders of 
France it meant a change in the relations of Church and 
State (where the throne had been upon the altar, the altar 
would now be tolerated upon the throne) and a policy of 
adherence to the charter in its widest and most comprehensive 
sense ; while for international affairs it implied an entire read- 
justment of foreign relations, a new alliance with England, 
a neutral attitude in the case of rebellious bordering provinces 
and yet a tacit approval of all liberal movements in countries 
with conditions similar to those in France. On this policy 
was the monarchical principle based and if he followed this 
consistently the founders guaranteed to Louis Philippe the 
continuation of his dynasty. 

But it must not be supposed that the government enjoyed 
at once the full support of all the French. Its existence de- 
pended only upon the support of its founders, the concessions 
of a moderate opposition and the toleration of the extremists, 
many of whom leaned toward Republicanism. But the Re- 
publican's day had not yet come.^ In the meantime there 

^ Other alterations concerned the franchise enlarging the electorate, 
taxation, the age of voters, deputies, etc. 

' It is interesting to note that even the people seemed to realize that 
Republicanism was not yet strong enough to assert itself. One con- 
temporary relates the following anecdote of the July Days : "Un de 



remained only two parties really significant, the "parti du 
mouvement" and the "parti de resistance," both to a great 
extent bourgeois. 

Upon his informal enthronement Louis Philippe found him- 
self between two extremes and he was necessarily hampered 
by this situation. The king, as the choice of the revolutionary 
and conservative element alike, was unable to assume any 
definite attitude. The scene at the Hotel de Ville had imposed 
on him the duties and limitations of a popular monarch while 
from the coalition of Conservatives and a few Progressives he 
was expected to employ the charter only to what they judged 
would be a reasonable and proper extent. Louis Philippe was, 
then, the people's king as well as the choice of a partially 
aristocratic body. Guizot and de Broglie were the leaders of 
the "resistance"; La Fayette, Laffitte and later Thiers, the 
leaders of the movement. And, as the foundation of the July 
Monarchy was due to a compromise, so its first ministry was 
to serve as a mean between the two parties. It was from 
the "resistance" and "mouvement," then, that the king selected 
the members of his cabinet.® 

As might easily be expected, such a combination was not 
of long duration and was a very unsatisfactory affair while 
it did last. The Ministry divided at once into its logical fac- 
tions and a confused state of affairs prevailed which assured 
Europe that there was no need to anticipate any immediate 
danger from the revolutionary government. From this con- 

nos amis qui est alle au camp de Rambouillet avec des ouvriers, bivou- 
quait pres d'un homme du peuple. "Je sais bien" dit ce dernier, "que 
de ce que nous faisons il ne nous reviendra rien et que nous n'en 
mourons moins de f aim ou a I'hopital ; mais nous. I'avons fait pour la 
patrie, pour vous, tenez," ajoutait-il, "qui est un bourgeois et qui en 
profiterez." d' Herbelot a Montalembert— 6 Aout 1830. Lettres 
d'Herbelot. 
• Dupin de I'Eure — Minister of Justice 

Comte Gerard — " " War 

de Broglie — " " Public Instruction and Sects 

Guizot — " " Interior 

Comte Mole — " " Foreign Affairs 

Baron Louis — " " Finance 

Comte Sebastiani— " " Marine 

Laffitte, C. Perier, Dupin (Aine) and Beugnot— ministers without 
portefolios. (Lesur Annaire 1830.) 

10 



dition ill the cabinet, there resulted in the poHtical world in 
France a veritable anarchy — religious, intellectual and politi- 
cal, for no one, legislator, elector or minister, knew his power.^° 
Thus at home the new monarchy had but a confused support. 
What was its position in Europe? 

France was sure of England's sympathies alone. The key 
to the whole situation is found in the Russian question. For 
a long time the Tsar's policy had been to convert the Black 
Sea into an interior lake, to hold back the fleets of England 
and France in the Mediterranean, and finally to gain the con- 
trol of Egypt, Greece and the Islands. The ultimate end of 
this policy was to obtain the English possessions in India; this 
necessitated the occupation of the Dardanelles. Charles X, as 
one of the restored Bourbons, had felt the obligation he was 
under to Russia, for it was the Emperor Alexander who had 
been foremost in negotiating the Restoration. Then too, he 
had the Bourbons' inherent respect for Legitimacy. It was 
his creed. Hence forgetful of England's kindness to his 
brother, he was inclined to allow the Russian policy to pro- 
gress without protest on his part. This attitude, in turn, 
had rapidly alienated England's sympathies, and upon the 
return of the "premier emigree" to the island as an exile, he 
was coldly received and overtures were made to the July 
Monarchy. This change in events could not but displease 
the Tsar, a displeasure which was further aggravated by the 
very evident sympathy entertained for Poland by a certain 
party in France. We find, then, a gradual rapprochement 
taking place between England and France as opposed to Rus- 
sia. The Tsar's position, however, was not one of entire isola- 
tion. For Austria, swayed by Metternich, was oblivious to the 
probable outcome of the Russian policy and rather inclined 
to an alliance, particularly since she was already harassed by 
the dangers of Prussian ambition and the progress of liberalism 
as agitated by the Carbonari in her Italian possessions. Prussia 
was too well occupied with rebellious Rhine provinces, and 

^^ "L'anarchie est moins dans les esprits que dans les pouvoirs ; il 
y en a des gens qui ne savent ce qu'ils veulent ; mais a la lettre personne 
ne sait ce qu'il peut." Madame Swetchine — ^Lettres. 12 November 
1830. And also d'Herbelot a Montalembert, 22 Sept. 1830. Lettres 
d'Herbelot. 



Spain and Portugal with difficult questions of succession, to 
be much concerned in French affairs. But in three smaller 
territories, to the north, south and east of France there were 
people watching eagerly the progress of events in Paris, people 
who felt that their very life depended on the yes or no of 
Louis Philippe, and whose hopes were centered in his gov- 
ernment. These countries were Belgium, Italy and Poland, 
all but one of whom were to hope in vain. From the point 
of view of external affairs, therefore, the situation was not 
bad. Louis Philippe had a strong ally nearby, and was to 
a certain extent protected from the Holy Alliance by the 
unsafe conditions in the intervening countries. What a su- 
preme opportunity there was for proving the worth of a 
liberal and constitutional monarchy! But this was not to 
be accomplished for in France itself there was nothing but 
a hopeless confusion of political dissensions, financial un- 
certainty, and an overpowering strain of personal egotism, all 
the inevitable consequences of forty-one years of revolution. 
Thus for foreign affairs the ministry declared "the doctrine of 
non-intervention," their interpretation of which was a veritable 
confession of the nation's weakness. In this France dis- 
claimed any intention of intervening in behalf of the liberal 
movements in Italy, provided, in return, no foreign interfer- 
ence should take place along her frontier. And, for internal 
safety's sake the Ministry of Progressives and Doctrinaires 
had to call to their support and enlarge the national guard, 
in former times a noble body of national defense, but now 
transformed into an army of merchants and business men who 
enlisted to defend their own interests and not to protect the 
liberties of France. 
London "'^ military monarchy is not a very enviable form of gov- 

Times, ernment for those over whom its authority is exercised. But 
^Tsio^^' ^ military democracy is perhaps the most to be deprecated."^^ 
This "military democracy" laid the foundation of a bour- 
geois rule, a reign of petty business interests in France. 

So the first ministry accomplished very little, and what they 
did accomplish was not for the future good of France. Never- 
theless there ensued shortly afterwards an all too brief period 

"For an opposite view v. d'Herbelot to Montalembert 9 Oct. 1830. 
Lettres d'Herbelot. 



12 



of interest in national affairs. This was occasioned by the 
trial of the ministers of Charles X. Republican sentiment had 
finally asserted itself and brought the ministers to trial, but 
the death penalty for political offenses was first abolished. 
There can be no doubt but that this demand for justice was 
brought about by the events in Belgium and by the examples 
of the revolutionaries in Brussels. The demands for immediate 
trial became so pressing that the Cabinet was forced to resign 
and on the second of November the "parti du mouvement" 
came into power, headed by Laffitte and Sebastiani.^- But 
this party brought very little relief, and, despite the appearance 
of liberalism in its legislative work, the results proved un- 
satisfactory. France is said to have suffered principally be- 
cause of two policies pursued during their term of office. The 
first was the debasing efforts of the Cabinet to obtain recog- 
nition for Louis Phihppe, and the second the passing of three 
laws one of which, it is asserted, paralyzed the power of the 
people in the commune and gave the bourgeois full sway.^^ 
Thus, while the Laffitte Ministry was honest and of one accord 
in its political professions, it was none the less incapable of 
preventing the gain of selfish interests and could accomplish 
nothing amid the confusing array of contrary political opinions. 
This condition, unfortunately, was not confined to the realm 
of poHtics, it extended to all branches of thought philosophical, 

^Laffitte — President of Council. Minister of Finance. 

Marechal Maison — Minister of Foreign Affairs. 

Dupont (de I'Eure) — Guard of the Seals. 

Comte Montalivet — Minister of the Interior. 

Merillon — Minister of Public Instruction and Sects. 

Marechal Gerard — Minister of War. 

Comte Sebastiani — Minister of Marine. 

Maison shortly afterwards replaced by Sebastiani. 

Gerard shortly afterwards replaced by Soult. 

Comte d'Argent — Minister of Marine. (Lesur Annaire). 
** "It was, in fact, during this period that there was established by 
the successive abandonment of all nations, the diplomatic system which 
tended to bring France down to the rank of secondary powers in 
order to obtain recognition of Louis Philippe's right to rule. It was 
also during this time that by the law on municipalities they paralyzed 
with the same blow the action of the people in the commune and 
that of local influence. By the law on elections it possessed itself 
exclusively of the State," L, Blanc, Hist. I. 410. 

13 



L. Blanc 
Hist, I, 410 



V. Tasche- 
reau Reme 
Retrospec- 
tive 



V. Produc- 
teur, No. 5 



V. Saint 

Simon — 

Oeuvres 

principally 

I, I 



social and religious. The result of such confusion was fatal 
to intellectual as well as political progress. 

France was proud. By a revolution she had formed a new 
government; why should she not, by an intellectual revolution, 
establish a new system of philosophy, or economics, a new 
socialism or a new religion? She was possessed by the same 
overweening-pride that had ruled her in the first and great 
Revolution.^* But in 1830 this pride was even greater, for 
having been in abeyance a score of years, it now rose higher 
into the realms of the impossible, more venomous, more in- 
tolerant and more dangerous than in the old time. There 
was again revived, under a slightly different form, the degen- 
erate worship of Reason, and new sects appeared calling them- 
selves Christian and embracing a vast and compound system 
of political science, morals, philosophy and religion. They 
became veritable centers of violence and riots. Among these 
it is well to note the Society of the People's Friend, which 
caused the sack of St. Germain I'Auxerrois, the Society of 
the Rights of Man, interested in the riots of 1832 and 1834, 
and the two Societies of the "Families" and the "Seasons," 
one or both perhaps, vitally concerned in the disturbances 
incident to the ministerial crises of 1839-1840. The most 
peculiar and most successful because of its leaders, was Saint 
Simonism.^^ Originally a purely economic theory, Saint 
Simonism degenerated into a form of religion and a rule of 
life. Their principles were based on two time-worn theories, 
the rehabilitation of the body and matter, and the legitimacy 
of pleasure and passion. The head of the Saint Simonians 
was a paradoxical personage of a pontifical character — having 
two persons and known as one. He or they taken together 

" Le gout et le peche revolutionaire par excellence c'est le gout 
et le peche de la destruction, pour se donner I'orgeuilleux plaisir de la 
creation. Dans les temps atteints de cette maladie I'homme considere 
tout ce qui existe sous ses yeux, le passe et le present, comme une 
matiere inerte dont il dispose librement et qu'il peut manier et remanier 
pour la fagonner, a son gre. II se figure qu'il a dans I'esprit des idees 
completes et parfaites qui lui donnent sur toute chose le pouvoir absolu 
et du nom desquels il peut a tout risque, et a tout prix briser ce qui 
est, pour le refaire a leur image." Guizot, Memoirs II. 21. 

^' Saint Simon, Enfantin, Bazard and even at one time A. Comte 
and Proudhon. 



14 



were called the "Pope." But — upon a quarrel between the 
two persons of the "Pope" who happened to be Enfantin 
and Hazard, the sect split up into separate factions and finally- 
disappeared. This is only one instance of the existence and 
end of countless sects in which individualism seems to have 
run riot. In addition to these groups there were, of course, 
still others who prided themselves on professing no beUef 
whatever. They comprised for the most part a struggling 
remnant known as the inheritors of the Encyclopedists. But 
even they in their turn, felt the ground tremble under their 
feet and saw their self-made confidence vanish. Then, feeling 
the void they themselves had created and too proud to return 
to the old faith, they must needs construct a belief of their 
own only to have it crumble to ruins in a short time. This 
was the anarchy of belief as well as of political doctrine in 
the early years of Louis Philippe's reign, egotistical, confused, 
illogical and of human fashioning. 

Amid the general chaos in the first year of the July Mon- 
archy, Christianity had not fared much better. Only with 
effort had the Faith been enabled to survive the fall of the 
Restoration, to which it had been so closely and so wrongly 
allied. CathoHcism existed but remained unrecognized. For 
the first time in centuries a king of France had not been 
blessed with the benediction of Rome. And had Louis Philippe 
desired this act, he could not have asked it, for in public 
he did not even dare mention the word "Providence." Re- 
ligion had been severed from Royalty, and, indeed, from 
authority as well. The crosses had been removed from the 
tribunes, some places of worship had been officially closed 
and when the "church" was mentioned it was nearly always 
in secrecy. Even the priests must needs be careful not to 
appear on the street if they would avoid insults. But if a 
priests aroused the throngs to ridicule, an open church often 
excited them to riot. St. Germain de I'Auxerrois was sacked, 
and the archbishop's palace pillaged, in the presence, it is 
asserted, of a member of the king's government.^® The ex- 
planation of all these events, however, is not so difficult as it 
appears at first sight. About the same time that the above 

" Thiers, L. Blanc, Hist. I, 394. 

15 



atrocities were committed Louis Philippe removed the fleurs 
de lys from his coaches. In the relation between these two 
events is found the secret of all the trouble. In all probability, 
the manifestations of hostility to the church shown by the 
Paris throng had their origin in a political rather than a re- 
ligious prejudice. By the Concordat of 1801 the church had 
been allied to the governing power. The Pope himself had 
seen this and must have regretted it, for, during the Restora- 
tion he had made ceaseless appeals for the negotiation of a 
new Concordat. But, all this had been of no avail, and the 
restored Bourbons had made the church in France the instru- 
ment of their own wishes and desires. In so doing they had 
established a form of Gallicanism that, upheld and fostered 
by the "petite figlise" party, had resulted greatly to their own 
increase of power but had been fatal to the good name of 
the church in France. When, therefore, the government of 
Charles X became more unpopular, the church, now almost an 
integral part of the Restoration, was equally despised, and 
upon the fall of Charles many, unable to distinguish the great 
truths and the real virtue lying at its basis, sought to make 
way with Catholicism as well. It was indeed a terrible punish- 
ment for the faith that many of the men of 1830 failed to 
distinguish Carlists from Catholics, not all of whom had joined 
in the selfish and foolish desires of their more extreme and 
reactionary colleagues. This, then, was the condition of the 
church in 1830. A new Jansenius was needed, but more, a 
new Arnauld, a Frenchman, not a stranger, who knew his 
people and his country, who loved them both, and yet loved 
above all his church. And so it was that coming out from 
their obscurity at La Chesnaie, where they had laboured and 
sent out from time to time messages of encouragement to 
the struggling remnant left in the church, a small group headed 
by the abbe de La Mennais, set out for Paris to begin a 
new work for which they had prepared themselves with care 
and continuous application. 

Robert Felicite de La Mennais was above all others, the 
man suited to appeal to those hardened patriots of the July 
Revolution. He had passed through just such experiences, 
just such vague uncertainties and just such doubts as they 
had undergone. Born in Brittany June 19, 1782, La Mennais 

16 



had been old enough to witness and consider in all its signifi- 
cance the last years of the earlier period in the French Revolu- 
tion. The Empire and Restoration had followed, and brought 
with them many old and some new abuses. The first found 
him without belief but the Restoration left him not only a 
convert but a priest. The latter step had been a difficult one 
and it had taken place only after a severe spiritual experience. ^- ^hal ^'^^' 
All the influences of the Revolution had thus had an oppor- Jeunesse de 
tunity to play and leave their impress upon the young priest, ch T^'^' 
from Rousseau, with whose works he became acquainted 
through his uncle, Robert des Saudrais, to de Bonald and Pas- 
cal, both of whom his interest in Chateaubriand's "Le Genie du 
Christianisme" led him to read. What a contrast this young 
priest must have been to many of his fellow-clergy, for the 
greater part much older than he and so embued with the 
importance of regaining their temporal powers that they 
seemed to have neglected their chief priestly function — that 
of ministering to humanity. From the very day of his ordina- 
tion La Mennais seems to have perceived this evil and de- 
termined to combat and resist it. It will be remembered that 
he made this the main theme of his first work, "Reflexions 
sur rfitat de Tfiglise en France pendant le dixhuitieme siecle, 
et sur sa situation acteuelle" (1808), and in future years La 
Mennais did not relent in his attack, even when busied with 
the management of his brother's order or occupied in the 
instruction of youth. It was in 182 1 that the young priest 
came definitely before the public eye. In that year he pub- 
lished an "Essai sur I'lndifiference en matiere de Religion." 
This work is of prime importance, for it predicted the author's 
future career and it contained the fundamentals of all the 
themes expounded ten years later in 'TAvenir" ; the regenera- 
tion of the church by liberty and the regeneration of mankind 
by the church when once it had been freed from its faults. 
The great evil of the church and people is a spiritual deadness. 
One paragraph alone is sufficient to make this clear: 

"The century the most seriously endangered is not one 
that eagerly pursues error, but the century that neglects and 
disdains the Truth. There Ts force and consequently hope, 
when you see violent transports of passion one way or the La Mennais 
other; but when all movement is stopped, when the pulse j preface' 

17 



has ceased to beat, when the cold has gained the heart, what 
is there left to expect but a rapid and inevitable dissolution? 
You may try to hide it from yourself; society in Europe is 
fast approaching this fatal end." 

With this hypothesis La Mennais set out to cure society 
of its fatal malady, and in his beginnings he displayed remark- 
able prescience. Realizing that the hope of the nation lay in 
its youth, in the coming generation, and not in the individual 
acts of one man alone, he gradually gathered around him a 
small group of young enthusiastic spirits into whom he might 
inculcate his ideas, the embodiment of which were later found 
in the motto selected for FAvenir — "Dieu et la Liberte." 
In this group, composed for the greater part of adherents 
to the liberal romatic youth of Paris, Henri Lacordaire was a 
prominent member, and it was probably this future priest who 
persuaded La Mennais to convert a small piece of family prop- 
erty known as La Chesnaie into a sort of religious community. 
The plan enjoyed immediate success and soon people came 
to say that what in Paris the Romantic School was for Litera- 
ture, the "ecole Menaisienne" at La Chesnaie became for re- 
ligion.^" It must not be supposed, however, that the "school" 
at La Chesnaie was an entirely isolated factor in the religious 
life of the nation. Even before its founding La Mennais 
had established relations in Paris that soon were brought into 
close connection with La Chesnaie, and as the fame and popu- 
larity of his books increased, he was forced to make more 
frequent journeys to Paris in order to consult his publishers. 
While in the Capitol he was accustomed to visit the home of 
his old friend the abbe de Salinis. It was there that La 
Mennais first met Abbe Gerbet to whom the project of the 
"Memorial Catholique" had just been confided, Rohrbacher 
even at that time writing his monumental history of the 
church, Goesset, de Bonald and Eugene Bore famous orientahst, 

" Tandisque le pretre s'appliquait a orienter et a maintenir dans un 
sens Chretien le mouvement romantiqae, le poete s'efforca de con- 
querir la jeune ecole catholique a sa reforme litteraire: Sainte-Beuve les 
seconda I'un et I'autre, bien qu'il eut peutetre autant de scepticisme 
en litterature qu'en religion. It mit a profit ses relations avec des 
menaisiens pour leur precher le romanticisme, et il ne le precha pas 
sans succes. La Mennais se laissa gagner.'" Boutard II. 93. 



editor of the "Journal Asiatique" and later superior of the 
Order of the Mission. The Salon of the abbe de Salinis thus 
became the cradle of the "ecole Menaisienne,"' and whenever 
the solitary priest of La Chesnaie came to the Capitol the 
abbe's home was crowded with friends and admirers, or others 
seeking introduction to this man who dared advocate views 
which they held but failed to express. 

In addition to the clergy La Mennais had many friends 
among the laity and they too flocked to the rendezvous that 
was now become the nucleus of a new Liberal Catholic 
Party. Among them were found such men as Foisset, Leon 
Bore, the brother of Eugene Bore and equally talented, de 
Cazales, de Carne a future champion of religious liberty in 
the chambers, Alphonse d'Herbelot at first an interested ob- 
server and then a convert, and Sainte-Beuve also a recent 
convert.^^ Even from this brief summary it may be clearly 
seen how the ideas of the young reformer had spread and 
were beginning to dominate a certain group of the Romantic 
School in Paris. But, La Mennais' ideas had gone still further, 
they had even permeated the reactionary clergy. This fact 
alarmed the more conservative of that body and, through the 
exertion of their influence La Mennais and his principles soon 
became a source of constant worry to the government and to 
Rome as well. Up to 1828, however, La Mennais had not 
been regarded as a controversialist, but beginning with that 
year he entered upon the field he was not to leave until his 
defeat. In all probably it was the July Ordinances that 
aroused him. To the utter astonishment of all the Liberal 
Catholics the Pope ordered them to submit to Charles X's 
humiliating decrees. This was too much for the hot-headed 
Breton priest. 

"I do not believe," he wrote, "that for centuries so great 
a scandal has been known ; and how fatal the results may 
be! Rome, Rome, what are you doing? What has become of 
that voice that in the old time sustained the feeble and aroused 
the negligent? That voice that has been accustomed to cir- 
cumvent the world, giving to all in times of danger, the courage 
to fight or to die. To-day they can only say: 'Submit.' If 

^*V. G. M. Harper— Sainte-Beuve. 66. 

19 



E Forgues, our fall comes from the source whence we ought to expect 
20 Oct. 1828 our salvation, what can we do but obey the words of the 
prophet, who said : 'Elongavi fugiens, et mansi in solitudine.' " 
From this time dates La Mennais' conversion to the belief 
in the absolute necessity of the church's entire independence 
and separation from the state. He now became an Ultra- 
montane but in an entirely different sense from the generally 
accepted meaning of that term. He desired Rome to throw 
off all secular interests, and to become thoroughly spiritualized. 
This done, he advocated complete subjugation to the will of 
the Pope. This feeling he expressed in the last works he 
published before the July Revolution: two letters to the 
Archbishop of Paris, one of which was condemned, and a 
work entitled "Des Progres de la Revolution et de la guerre 
contre Ifiglise." These works decided Le Mennais' future. 
The Conservative Party, the largest and most strongly Gallican, 
beheld in him a dangerous Progressive and Ultramontane of 
and entirely new stamp, while his timid followers looked on 
aghast. In a letter written to a friend in May, 1829, a little 
over a year before his entrance into public life. La Mennais 
describes his position in a striking manner. 

"When I consider the astonishing phenomenon that the 
present offers to us, I have difficulty in finding sufficient per- 
sonal strength to console myself for having broken the silence 
that many have kept so happily for their own welfare. The 
church was there, alone in the arena, given over to the beasts 
and gladiators: I felt the desire to fight for her, to defend 
« her with my own weakness. Immediately bishops and priests 

ran to watch the spectacle, their pockets filled with stones. 
They sat down and it became a contest to see who, from the 
height of their comfortable seats where they reclined at ease, 
could hit with greatest accuracy the misguided and daring 
fellow who had exposed himself to the teeth of the bears 
and tigers, without authorization ; these same people who play 
the game witih such skill, become irritated when his actions 
C rre^D^^' ^^^ "°^ conformable to their desires; they would not have' 
22 Mai 1829 done as he has, and the stone arrives to prove it to him." 

This was the encouragement La Mennais received from the 
church whose miserable condition has been described. Upon 
his very first entrance on the field those blind ecclesiastics 

20 



attacked the man who, for the salvation of humanity and the 
church, sought to make them distinguish real religion from 
an affair of politics, and an ideal and logical order in the church 
from a condition of flagrant disorder and abuse. It now 
remains to see how he and his school fared under another 
regime whose head had cried aloud : "La Charte sera desormais 
une verite." 



CHAPTER II 

LOUIS PHILIPPE AND LA MENNAIS 

During the nineteenth century, the Liberal Roman Cath- 
olics sprung from the school of La Mennais, exerted a con- 
siderable influence in questions of internal and external 
politics in France. This influence dates from the Charter 
of 1830 and outlasts the July Monarchy. Those eighteen 
years witnessed but the beginnings of a great movement 
which seemed at first to have culminated in the Law of 
Separation in 1905, but which, many believe, has not yet 
reached its end. Like all such movements, the early period 
(1830-1848) to which our study is confined, falls into two 
divisions, the "epoque critique" and the "epoque organique'' — 
to borrow an expression from the Saint Simonians. The first 
half of the reign of Louis Philippe, then, is the formative 
period when the movement centered about one principal figure 
the Abbe de La Mennais, and when its action was diffused 
and uncertain, seeking a point d'appui. In 1840, in turn, 
a change seems to have come over it, transforming it into a 
more reasonable and logical agitation for one definite object — 
and that, the fulfilment of one article of the Charter — the 
69th — by which Liberty of Instruction was guaranteed. It 
was then that the Liberal Catholics exerted a positive influence. 
From 1840 begins, then, the "epoque organique," a period 
lasting even to our own day and full of interest and import 
to the student of modern French history. But it would be 
quite impossible to take up a study of the "epoque organique" 
without a careful consideration of the earlier and more form- 
ative agitation, for in the latter are found the fundamentals 
and most of the origins of the later period. Events led La 
Mennais and his group to make the first effort and Montalem- 
bert and Lacordaire to profit by their first experience and 
succeed in their second attempt. It is, however, a curiously 
ironic comment on the short sightedness of human nature that, 

22 



at the time of success, when these two leaders were at the 
zenith of their activity the Liberal Catholics seemed loath to 
acknowledge their origin. One of them, probably Louis 
Veuillot, wrote: 

"The history of ecclesiastical opposition in France may be 
divided into three situations : the first the resistance of priests 
and bishops, in 1811, to the imperial government, the second 
the declaration of the French episcopacy in 1828 to the July 
Ordinances, and the third the protest of the bishops in 1841 
to the Monopole Universitaire and the proposed laws on 
secondary instruction. About these three principal events 
center all accessory questions ; the arena opened at these three 
periods was filled with a crowd of 'petits combats partiels'; 
but all the efforts from one side or from the other are centered 
in these three solemn debates." 

And so they would place the great effort of La Mennais — 
the founder of their own school, in the classification of 
"petis combats partiels"! Happily Time, more just, has ac- 
knowledged the fault and given the credit where it is due. 

The church, after the Revolution of 1830, presented a 
curious paradox. 

"'Je ne sais ou nous abouterons, mais vraiment le catholicisme 
est bien malade et ne sait qui le relevera." 

So one of those interested in the "ecole menaisienne" had 
written shortly before the fall of the Restoration. This may 
be said to describe the condition of the church a year later 
when the clergy seemed stricken with a hopeless apathy and 
civil death. ^ But this appearance was a curious one for it 
did not represent the true state of affairs. Legally, or from 
the point of view of the Constitution, their condition was 
much happier. For, the Charter of 1830, while declaring that 
the state 'did not profess any specified religion, allowed the 
people a free choice and provided that all clergymen should 
be paid from the public treasury.- Furthermore, by the pro- 

'' "Le 'Clerge est frappe d'une sorte de mort civile." Ami la Religion 
et du roi. 12 Juillet 1831. 

^ "Art. 5. Chacun professe sa religion avec une egale liberte et 
obtient pour son culte une egale protection. 

Art. 6. Les Ministres de la religion Catholique, apostolique and 
romaine professee par la majorite des franqais et ceux des autres cultes 
Chretiens recoivent des traitements du Tresor." Charter of 1830. 

23 



L'Univers, 

15 Aout, 

1846 



d'Herbelot 
to Monta- 

lembert, 
- Aout, 1829 



L. Veuillot, 
"Rome et 
Lorette," I, 

39 

Debidour. 

"E et E," 

414-419 

Thureau 

Danguin, 

Hist., I, 246, 

7 



mise of a new law, liberty of instruction was guaranteed.' 
Despite these facts, however, the position of the clergy and 
the state of religion in France were not so good as might 
have been expected. To explain such a state of affairs would 
necessitate a careful review of the preceding thirty-one years. 
In brief this condition arose from two main causes. The first 
cause was antecedent to the entire situation and lay in the 
fact that the Concordat of 1801 and the Organic Articles were 
still in force and restricted, to some extent, whatever liberties 
the Charter might have promised, while the second cause was 
the attitude of the new government and the people's response 
to it. 

The early legislation of the chambers under the July Mon- 
archy indicated what would be its attitude to religion. In 
politics they had demanded and successfully effected a sub- 
ordination of all powers to bourgeois interest. For religion, 
they were to act the same way. As the Concordat of 1801 
had been a protest against the possibility of the rise of reac- 
tionary church principles, so the early religious policy of the 
Bourgeois Monarchy was intended to serve as a counteraction 
against the "dangerous doctrine of theocracy" (as they con- 
sidered it) advocated by the young Catholics through their 
leader, La Mennais. The one desire of the legislature at that 
moment was moderation, and, too confident in their own ability 
to create institutions, they sought to establish in the Church 
what, it was believed, would prove "a moderate and reasonable 
faith." The Church, then, was in no immediate danger of 
interference on the part of the chambers ; both houses only 
sought to establish that very state of indifference which La 
Mennais would have abolished. 

The ministers, however, were in a still less certain position. 
Divided as they were between "mouvement" and "resistance" 
they could not arrive at any definite decision, could not carry 
out any of the liberties guaranteed by the Charter, and soon 
initiated that policy of promising and failing to fulfill their 

®"Art. 6. The following subjects shall be provided for successively 
by separate lavirs w^ithin the shortest possible space of time. 



8th Public Instruction and the Liberty of Teaching." 
1830. 



Charter of 



24 



promises that was to end in becoming a principal cause of the 

downfall of Louis Philippe. It would have been better had 

they heeded the words of more than one prophet who took 

the trouble to warn them.* The attitude of the king, in turn, 

was equally curious, and as time went on his personal feelings 

in the matter of religion became more difficult to explain and 

less creditable. During the early period he maintained 

a discreet silence. Louis Philippe was, perhaps, afraid of 

the Church questions, and in this he was not so unreasonable 

as it might appear at first glance. A divided Church harassed 

him on both sides. One wing the Galileans, remnants of 

the "petite eglise" or "parti pretre" held decidedly strong 

legitimist sympathies, while in the other faction La Mennais and 

his group were beginning to attract attention and to betray 

every day more unmistakable signs of republican tendencies. 

"Better not put your finger in church afifairs. You will never Debidour, 

get it out again. It will stay there." the king is said to ^ ^^ ' ^^ 

have remarked. 

Among the French in general the attitude to Catholicism 
may be summed up in three categories ; the faithful, the in- 
different and the hostile. The former comprised the great 
majority of the lower class known as the "people," and also 
a number of the nobility, together with an occasional bourgeois. 
The people believed in it, the nobles, for the most part, prac- 
ticed it as both a poHtical and a religious creed, while the 
few bourgeois who accepted Catholic principles generally did 
so in a sincerely reverent spirit. The second class, the indiff- 
erent, held that some sort of a religion was necessary for the 
lower classes. And why not Catholicism? Among their num- 
ber were principally the members of the Right and Left 
Centers, and a few nobles. The majority, however, came 
from the rich bourgeois class. In the third category, are 

*At this time many pamphlets were published advising the new- 
government what attitude to take to the religious problem. As a type 
I quote the following paragraph : 

"Au reste, avant de terminer ce chapitre, je donnerai un dernier 
conseil au government: c'est de ne pas opprimer la religion consacree 
dans la charte ; il s'en trouvera bien. S'il en etait autrement, de grands 
malheurs pourraient venir affliger notre patrie." "Reflexions d'un 
Royaliste." Dolle 183 1. 

25 



found the adherents of the extreme Left — for the most part 
a collection, and fairly large at that, of the discontented 
political riff-raff. They were all violently opposed to the 
Church as an institution and as a creed, and soon inaugurated 
a disgusting anti-clerical campaign by launching forth a flood 
of "literature" some of which bore such choice titles as, 
"Histoire scandaleuse, politique, anecdotique et bigote du 
clerge de France," "Infamie des pretres devoilee," "La chemise 
de Femme et Correspondance Gallante trouvee dans I'oratoire 
de I'archeveche de Paris," "L'archeveque de Paris accuse 
d'assassinat sur la personne de soeur Veronique, pharmacienne 
de St. Cyr" and so forth. ^ 

This was the spirit of the times and the state of affairs 
when La Mennais left La Chesnaie and came to Paris in 
September, 1830. He did not come this time, however, to 
consult his publisher nor to visit the branch of his brother's 
order in the rue de Vaugirard, but to found the newspaper 
that was to become the mouthpiece of the Liberal Roman 
Catholics. For some time negotiations had been under way. 
It seems that immediately after the July Days in 1830 M. 
Harel du Tancrel conceived the idea of founding a paper 
which would force the government to live up to the Charter 
in so far as Roman Catholic Liberties were concerned. He 
suggested it to be abbe Gerbet of the "Memorial Catholique" 
and the latter communicated at once with the group at La 
Chesnaie. La Mennais had long been considering the starting 
of a newspaper by means of which he could expound his 
views for the redemption of the church and for the saving 
Boutard, ^^ j^jg fellow-men by the church once redeemed and raised to 

II, IIo -^ 

its former state. A few weeks later he wrote to a friend : 

"They are shortly going to publish here a newspaper, the 
prospectus of which you must have received ; it will appear 
the fifteenth of October; its name will be I'Avenir and its 
purpose to unite, on the bases of liberty, men of all opinions 
attached to order; this attempt which circumstances seem to 
favour wonderfully, will not be without success, I believe. 

°V. Pamphlets of the date also. "Ami du Peuple" 30th Octobre 1830 
and Janvier, Fevrier 183 1. 

The more vulgar theatres produced plays entitled: "Victimes Cloi- 
trees," "Papesse Jeanne," etc. 

26 • 



In fact, I hope much good will come of it. Among us there 
exists already a great group of liberals who are weary of 
anarchy and despotism and who understand that the oppres- 
sion of one party by another is not liberty but tyranny ; these 
come in crowds together under the banner of I'Avemr; the 
clergy too will seek protection there. Only certain royalists i^grres. ed 

are holding off and among them even there are many whom Forgues, 
•11 1- 1 M 20 Sept., 

tmie will enlighten. jg^o 

The editors and principal contributors of the new journal 

were to be — La Mennais, Lacordaire, Montalembert, 

who joined them in November 1830, Rohrbacher, de 

Coux, Baade of Doellinger School in Munich, Count Merode Lettres de la 
° Mennais a 

and Hartel du Tancrel who was called the editor-in-chief. Montalem- 

In reality, of course. La Mennais was the leader. A prospectus ^, p^^*- 
brought forth many subscriptions, and La Mennais was much 8 Nov. 1830 
encouraged. Perhaps, however, he was too sanguine, he 
had failed to consider his enemies. The outlook for the news- 
paper was of the very brightest, its board possessed talent and 
it was announced that from time to time the greatest writers F(J'/gues^2i 
of the period would contribute.^ Sept., 1830 

In the middle of October the first number of I'Avenir ap- 
peared, and in it the real editor-in-chief. La Mennais, did not 
hesitate to expound his views: 

*Tf you sincerely desire religious liberty, liberty of edu- 
cation without which there can be no religious liberty, you 
are one of us ; but we too are in sympathy with you, for we 
desire no less sincerely the liberty of the press, all the political 

' In fact many famous writers did contribute — among the most 
prominent of the Romantic School we note : V. Hugo — a chapter — 
Notre Dame de Paris, Lamartine, Verse and Letters to Montalembert. 
V. I'Avenir 20 Juillet 1831 and numbers for December and January 1831. 

Thureau-Dangin in his History of the July Monarchy renders 
homage to the talent gathered in I'Avenir in the following eloquent 
terms : "Apres tout, nul journal ne reunissait alors des ecrivains d'un tel 
talent. C'etait La Mennais avec cette langue qui faisait de lui presque 
I'egal de M. de Chateaubriand et de M. de Maistre, avec cette vehe- 
mence sombre, terrible, qui serait a la fois du tribune populaire, et du 
prophete biblique ; inflexible dans sa dialectique, amer et dedaigneux 
dans son ironie, manquant souvent de mesure et de gout, mais n'en 
demeurant pas moins I'un des rheteurs les plus eclatants, et I'un des 
plus redoubtables polemistes de ce temps." 

27 



and civil liberties compatible with the maintenance of public 
I'Avenir, order." 
lo Oct., 1830 Thus at the very outset, almost from the opening lines of 
the first number of I'Avenir, it is evident how far in the 
brief space of July to October, La Mennais' party of Liberal 
Roman Catholics had wandered from the paths of the Doc- 
trinaires with whom they seemed to be in alliance but a few 
months before. They no longer demanded a mild and dis- 
creet following of the Charter but a fulfilment "a outrance.'* 
Republicanism, therefore, appeared in the very first number 
of I'Avenir and, as time went on this tendency became more 
evident. Even the Republicans failed, however, until several 
months later, to perceive the entirety of La Mennais' plan 
as outlined in I'Avenir." Liberty to the editors of this paper 
V. I'Avenir, meant a firm opposition to Gallicanism, which was nothing 
17 Oct., 1830, j^Qj-g in their eyes than the cause of anarchy in the spiritual 
Forgues II,' world and despotism in the political. Moreover, they would 
^9^ tolerate Louis Philippe's governtment only so long as the 

Church remained independent in its teaching, its government 
L Blanc ^^^ ^^^ discipline. This, in turn, could lead to nothing else 
Hist., I, than an abolition of the Concordat of 1801. So much for the 
^^^ Church itself. 

Their demands for civic liberties were still greater and 
comprised such large questions as the liberty of education, 
both school and university, the liberty of the press and that 
of association. But the demands of I'Avenir did not end 
here, they extended even into the realms of diplomacy. In 
this matter particularly, ''I'Avenir" found itself absolutely in 
opposition to the policy of the government as set forth by 
the two ministers of the Formation period. The new Catholics 
were fundamentally and irrevocably opposed to the ministers' 
interpretation of the doctrine of non-intervention, and they 
maintained that the right and duty of a powerful and liberal 
nation, if that nation be truly powerful and liberal, was to 
intervene in behalf of all others less fortunate ; hence I'Avenir' s 
attitude to Belgium, Poland, Italy and Ireland.^ 

"Catholics, let us learn to demand, to defend our rights 

^ For the most comprehensive exposition of I'Avenir's attitude in this 
respect, V. I'Avenir 21 Fevier 1831. An article by Montalembert. 

28 



which are the rights of all Frenchmen, the rights of every man 

who is determined not to bend under a yoke any longer, to 

refuse all kinds of servitude no matter under what guise it 

appears or with what name it is cloaked. A man is free when 

he wants to be; he is free when he knows how to unite and 

fight and die rather than cede the very slightest portion of J^Z^^^^o 

those rights that are alone of value to human existence." 

This was not the language of the Monitettr, the Journal des 
Dchats, nor yet of Ami de la Religion et hi roi. Such a pro- 
gramme could appeal only to the most ardent of the Liberal 
Catholics and to those men of the political world who were the 
most extreme Republicans. What a contrast to the language of 
forty and more years before when another Hberal Catholic 
sought to join his cause to that of the Republicans !^ Vast is 
the distance between 1790 and 1830. It is even greater than 
that between Gallican principles and a new ultramontanism. 

"God has placed the only real remedy in the law of the 
Gospel destined to unite men by a fraternal affection ; from 
this it results that all live in each and each live in all. Real 
liberty and Christian spirit are inseparable. He who does not 
love his brother as himself, no matter what his opinions and 
speculations may be, contains within himself a grain of tyranny 
and consequently of servitude. Furthermore, the universal and 
crying need of liberty today is to our eyes a certain proof that 
Christianity, far from being weakened, is really more power- 
ful than ever. For, leaving the surface of society where a 
thousand constraints were sapping its life away, it has gone 
down to the very basis of society and there in silence it is ac- 
complishing a work that is just now commencing."^ 

It was with such words that he called out to the bishops : 
"Go, like the twelve fishermen, and recommence the conquest 
of the world." 

From the State, I'Avenir asked but little assistance; they 
already saw its weakness in the vagueness of its policy.^" 

"I'Avenir proposed to defend the Catholic institution (sys- 

*Abbe Gregoire and the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. 

'La Mennais' account of the purpose of "I'Avenir," Affaires de Rome,. 

p. 34- 

^* C'est ainsi tres certainement qu'on prolonge les revolutions." 
I'Avenir, 17 October 1830. 

29 



Affaires de tern) languishing and persecuted principally by those very 
ome 4-5 pQ^gj-s that affect to call themselves its protectors." 

But to do this, Christianity as a whole, not only the bishops, 
must go back to the primitive Church eighteen centuries in the 
past, and La Mennais intended I'Avenir to show them the 
way: 

"And now what way remained for her to become what 
she had been in the beginning, to recover with the confidence 
of the masses her influence, except that of returning to the 
source, of identifying her interests, as much as possible, in the 
interests of humanity, of coming to the assistance of its needs, 
and of aiding it to develop in all its phases and all its conse- 
quences applicable at that time, the Christian principle of 
equality before the law. The realization of this principle con- 
stitutes order without which there is no hberty, and liberty 
Affaires de without which there is no law." 

Among the lower clergy such a philosophy found many wil- 
ling hearers, but among the bishops few, for the majority 
of the higher ecclesiastics were Legitimists and found their 
opinions reflected in the pages of Ami de la Religion et du 
roi. Moreover, La Mennais did not enjoy the favor of the 
Archbishop of Paris who had already had occasion to condemn 
him and who regretted the Bourbons. The Vatican, in turn, 
maintained a strict silence, doubtless because they hoped to 
obtain a repeal of the Concordat. Had Pius VIII but seen 
what a later pontifif saw ; had he but realized that a Pope 
should not be a Regalist if he would be independent and that 
despotisms or absolute states were his greatest enemies ! 

Their enemies — at home — however, were not long silent, 

and as if to tempt the new group into a rash statement they 

Ami de la confronted them at once with a difficult problem. The coal- 
Keligton et ^ ^ _ _ _ ^ 

du rot, 16-20 ition of Legitimists and Gallicans asked if the Church could 

Oct, 1830 really recognize a government that was the issue of a revolu- 
tion. The coalition held, of course, that it was impossible. 
The answer, happily, was not so difficult for the Liberal Catho- 
I'Avenir ^^^^ ^^ their interrogators had anticipated. They replied : 
17 Oct., 1830 "Populus facit regem." The statement of his opinion marks 
the first point of departure from the political doctrines of the 
old church party. The Gallicans could not tolerate an acknowl- 

30 



edgment of Louis Philippe, and still more unpardonable to 
their eyes were the republican sympathies of the new Catho- 
lics.^^ To this first separation from the Legitimist branch of 
the Church has been attributed the fall of the first movement, 
unfavourable reports of which preceded La Mennais to Rome 
and followed Lacordaire, the more timid, even to the pulpit of 
Notre Dame. But time, it seems, has shown that this answer 
was not the most important of several causes. 

So far, the activity of the new party had been confined en- 
tirely to propaganda in fAvenir, and was of a speculative 
nature only, but it was not long before they were called upon to 
test their theories. The Charter of 1830 while granting liber- 
ties of which I'Avenir had demanded the execution, had 
also made stipulations against which it had loudly protested. 
Their principal objection was based on an article declaring that 
"the clergy of the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Religion, 
which faith is professed by the majority of the French, and 
the clergy of other denominations as well, shall receive salaries 
from the public treasury." Upon the presentation of a budget 
for 1,670,000,000 francs by M. Lafiitte, great opposition was 
aroused. The Globe and its satellites protested strongly on 
the ground of excessive expenses. Le Mennais and his school 
lent their voices to this protest, but in a totally different sense ; 
they objected to the servitude of the clergy in that they were 
paid by the state. At the same time the king, acting upon the 
Concordat, appointed two bishops. Here was the opportunity 
for the Liberal Catholics to enter the field. Protests became 
more violent. Alarmed by the opposition of the two parties 
the government determined on a show of force ; La Mennais 
and Lacordaire were brought before the tribunal for two arti- 
cles they had published in I'Avenir apropos of the budget 
and the nomination of the bishops.^- As usual, this display 



Thureau- 

Dangin, 

Hist., II, 

293 



Charter, 
1830, Art. 6 



" N'avoir que du sucre et du miel pour les redacteurs du "Globe," 
par exemple, et reserver tout son fiel contre nous, nous prodiguer les 
signes de mepris, affecter avec nous des airs de hauteur; de tels pro- 
cedes conviennent — ils a des ecrivains qui se respectent un peu, et sur- 
tout a des Chretiens et a des pretres?" Ami de La Religion et du roi. 
3 Fevrier 183 1. 

'"La Mennais' article appeared in I'Avenir 26 November 1830, under 
the title — "Oppression des Catholiques." He said, in part : "Ou le 



31 



of determination on the part of the government brought it 

V. London little credit and resulted in a tacit victory for the accused. 

Feb. 4, 1831 Thus the first persecution of I'Avenir ended in a gain, for it 

had given the defendants an opportunity to express publicly 

their views. 

There is one phase of the affair, however, which must not 
be overlooked. As has been noted, the Gallicans were offended 
by the language of I'Avenir, and in their account of the trial 
they inaugurated a policy of recrimination against the new 
party, attacking it not from the point of view of the monarchy 
or their own political opinions but from that of the Church 
and orthodoxy alone. It is interesting to let them speak for 
themselves : 

"One phrase, among others, surprises us in this plea (of 
M. Janvier) : here it is : "M de la Mennais has charged me 
to tell you that for fifteen years he has worked to regenerate 
Catholicism and to give it — under a new guise and according to 
the new progress — the force and life that have abandoned it." 
If we had only read this sentence in the Gazette des Tribunes 
we could have believed that it had been inexactly reported ; 
but it exists with the same text in I'Avenir. Furthermore, M. 
de la Mennais was present at the trial and did not protest 
against the use of this expression. It is therefore, an establish- 
ed fact that he had charged his lawyer to say that he had been 
working for fifteen years to regenerate Catholicism and that 
it had lost its force and life. This declaration certainly will 
not displease the enemies of the Church ; they accused it of 



pouvoir ne peut pas ou il ne veut pas, en ce qui nous concerne, etre 
fidele a ce qu'il a promis. S'il ne peut pas qu'est ce que cette moquerie 
de souverainete, ce fantome miserable du gouvernement, et qu'y a-t-il 
entre lui et nous? II est a notre egard comme s'il n'etait pas, et il ne 
nous reste, en I'oubliant, qu'a nous proteger nous-memes. 

. . . S'il ne veut pas, il rompt le contrat qui nous liait e lui, condi- 
tion expresse qu'il tiendra lui-meme ses engagements envers nous ; 
sinon non." Lacordaire's article had appeared the day before and was 
called "Aux fiveques de France," I'Avenir, 25 Nov. 1830. These 
articles had a bad effect, they estranged more than ever the Gallicans 
who reported the matter to Rome. Quite a correspondence is said to 
have passed between La Mennais and Ventura who sought to extricate 
him from this unfortunate situation, but to no avail. V. Boutard IL 225. 



32 



having degenerated and M. de la Mennais supports them in de- Ami de la 
daring that it has lost its life and its force and that he is striving ^^ duroi 
to bring about its regeneration." 8 Fevrier, 

This word "regenerer" employed by M. Janvier with or 
without the defendant's sanction was to cost La Mennais 
much. It was repeated in the Papal Bull which was later Vos," Greg., 
directed against him. This, then, was the influence at Rome ^^^' ^"§-' 
of I' Ami de la Religion et du roi and its adherents. The 
following year held another such victory in store for the Liberal 
Catholics, but it was not to bring with it such unhappy results. 

The government, in its turn, gained little profit from the 
trial. It only served to accentuate more than ever its inherent 
weakness, a fact which was made all the more evident by their 
attitude in regard to the elections of a new Pope, and the mem- 
orial service for Louis XVI. Well might others compare past 
glories and the July Monarchy; the comparison was not flat- 
tering for the "Liberals" of 1830! Shortly after the trial an- y. London 
other event of interest to the Church occurred, the sack of St. J^^^^^'o 
Germain de I'Auxerrois. As has been previously noted, this ibid., 22 Jan.j 
was probably an attempt on the part of the group in control to ^831 
show the determination of the government. It was, too, a politi- 
cal recrimination against the Church, but may it not also 
have been an apology on the part of the government to the 
bourgeois for its manifest weakness in December and Janu- 
ary? By many parties it was regarded as a most unfortunate 
affair.^^ At any rate, it gave I'Avenir the opportunity it was 
waiting for, the chance to make a definite and public break 
with the July Monarchy and the Galileans as well. On the 
morrow of the outrage the following article appeared in 
I'Avenir: 

"Catholics, the foolhardy have just succeeded in compro- 
mising both the peace of the country and your own just cause, 
by covering with the cloak of religion their evil designs and 
perhaps even their conspiracies. They have attempted to in- 

^^ A propos of the sack Guizot is said to have remarked : "De toutes 
les orgies, celles de Timpiete revolutionaire sont les pires, car c'est la 
qu'eclate la revoke des ames contre leur souverain. Et je ne sais en 
verite, les quels sont les plus insenses de ceux qui s'y jeterent avec 
fureur, ou de ceux qui sourirent en les regardant." Quoted from Bar- 
doux-Guizot 60. 

33 



augurate civil war beside a tomb, thus profaning prayer, the 
temple, the sacrifice, the mysteries of God and of death. . . . 
Break, therefore, break forever with men whose incorrigible 
ignorance endangers this holy religion, who sacrifice their God 

L'Avenir, to their king, and who, if they once gain the upper hand, will 

1 8 Fevrier 

1831 ' degrade your altars until they are nothmg more than mere 

thrones."^* 

This article attacking as it did, both the Old Church party 
and the State, produced a great effect, more, perhaps, than 
I'Avenir had anticipated. It offended all conservatives, and 
such violent words were again unfortunate for so noble a 
movement. Already hated by the Legitimists I'Avenir had 
now broken whatever ties of allegiance it may have had with 
the men of the government who asserted that they had never 
placed entire faith in the "ecole menaisienne." La Mennais 
was to find that from now on he had practically all of con- 
servative or even moderate opinion against him; the govern- 
ment frightened and angered at the tone in which VAvenir 
had spoken of the throne, the Legitimists overjoyed at the false 
^ig^^vrier' ^*^P °^ ^^^^^ rival," and many of the Liberals who were total- 
1831 ly unable to understand such an attitude. His political enemies 

now sought to discountenance "the Breton" among his fellow 
clergy and superiors. It seems, however, that La Mennais 

19 Fevrier, ' ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ author of this article, as he was not in Paris at 
1831 the time.i^ The blame fell, none the less, upon the leader of 

the group. The cause of the Liberal Roman Cathohcs was not 

lost, it was but endangered: now, they must fight for their ex- 
lAvenir, . ^ ,,., ,,, 

29 Avril, istence, and this they proceeded to do. 

1831 It must not be supposed, however that this small enthusias- 

"V. also Ami de la Religion et du roi. 12 Fevrier 1831 and numbers 
for April 183 1. 

Even La Mennais' friends at Rome were alarmed by this extreme 
language and they urged him to accede to the warning of abbe Ventura 
who had written him shortly before : "Votre tort devient d'autant 
plus grand que vous paraissez precher la Revolution au nom de la 
Religion." Quoted from letter published in Ami de la Religion et. 
du roi. ID Fevrier 1831. 

^ Commenting on this attitude they referred to part of an article 
they had published before and claimed it was justified. V. Ami de la 
Religion et du roi. 10 Fevrier 183 1. 

"It has been ascribed to Montalembert. Boutard II. 262. 

.. 34 



tic group in the Church had allowed themselves to go so far 
without at least an attempt to obtain papal sanction for their 
ideas. La Mennais himself relates that on the second day of 
February, 1831, the very date of the election of Gregory XVI, 
the editors of rAvenir somewhat surprised by the discussion 
their actions had given rise to, and fearing perhaps that they 
had gone too far, signed an exposition of their doctrines. The 
document was given to a deputy who, in turn, presented it to 
Monsieur Sebastiani. The Foreign Minister promised to see 
that it reached the Pope through a diplomatic channel. For 
some reason or other the exposition was not given to Gregory 
XVI at this time, perhaps because of the serious political con- 
dition existing in the Papal States. The unfortunate part of 
the entire affair, however, is the fact that the government failed 
to notify La Mennais of its decision not to transmit the docu- 
ment and it was not until much later that the editors of rAvenir 
discovered the false position in which they had been placed. 
They continued the publication, supposing naturally by the 
Pope's silence and failure to reply, that they had his tacit ap- 
proval. When they finally did discover the whole truth of the 
matter, they were already in hard straits. Well might they 
question if the government had not done this purposely! The 
above incident should be held in mind throughout the follow- 
ing account of subsequent events, for it throws an entirely 
different light on the later actions of La Mennais and his party. 
Furthermore, it is an important fact which many critics of this 
period have failed to take into consideration. 

At this time, ignorant of the fate which others seemed to be 
holding in store for them, the Liberal Catholics felt the time 
had come to put into practice their professed doctrines, and to 
fight for their own justification. Happily the means were not 
lacking. As if to prepare for such a contingency cautious and 
less impulsive hands had already molded the foundations of 
a great bulwark, the "Agence generale pour la defense de la 
liberte religieuse." The organization of such an institution 
had been principally the work of Montalembert, but here 
again he had turned to La Mennais for the first impulse. In 
1828 La Mennais had founded the "Association, pour la 
defence de la Religion Catholique." This association had been 



I'Avenir, 
15 Novem- 
ber, 1831 



I'Avenir, 
IS Novem- 
ber, 1831 



Memoire 
presentee 
au souve- 
rain Pontif 
Greg XVI, 
par les re- 
dacteurs de 
I'Avenir, etc. 



35 



Boutard, II, 
182 



Thureau 

Dangin, 

Hist. Mon., 

Juillet, 

II, 293, et 

seq. 



Lettres de 

La Menna 

a Montalem- 

bert, Ed. 

Forgues 

Lettre IV 



V. Charter 

of 1830, Art. 

69 



Boutard, 
II, 171 



dissolved at the time of the July Revolution, and, using it 
as a basis, Montalembert constructed a new society of 
greater proportions, more ambitious, and in the end, more 
effective. 

"It was a question of meeting together not to pray, nor 
yet to discuss, but rather to act; and to work for the defense 
not only of their own faith, but for every religious liberty." 

At first the sole purpose of the "Agence" was to provide 
legal assistance to Catholics prosecuted under laws restricting 
their religious liberties, but later, through the influence of 
Montalembert, it extended its field of interest. Its organiza- 
tion was officially announced on the eighteenth of November, 
1830 — just one month after the founding of VAvenir. In 
speaking of it La Mennais had said : 

"Nous avons depose dans la societe des germes qui ne 
seraient pas steriles ; le temps les developpera et les devel- 
oppera d'autant plus que les passions et les prejuges qui nous 
ont combatv ameneront plus de calamitees." 

By its very name the "Agence" was a demand for another 
liberty promised by the Charter and until now withheld by a 
timorous and inefficient ministry — the right of association. 
But the "Agence" aimed not only at the fulfilment of this 
right and the defense of religious privilege; it would also aid 
and encourage the faithful, and strengthen the hearts of those 
uncertain through the profession of a liberalism more or less 
anti-religious. It was governed by a Council of nine directors, 
Montalembert being the most prominent, and over which 
La Mennais, as Chairman presided. The purpose of 
"L'Agence" as set forth in I'Avenir was threefold; the bring- 
ing to trial of all cases involving the liberty of the clergy, 
the support of all schools of all grades against any attempted 
restriction of the privilege of liberty of instruction as promised 
in the Charter and the maintenance of the right of association.^^ 



" I. Le redressement de tout acte contre la liberte des ministres eccle- 
siastiques par poursuites devant les chambres et devant les tribunaux. 

2. Le soutien de tout establissement d'instruction primaire, secondaire, 
et Universitaire, contre tous les actes arbitaires, attentoires a la liberte 
de renseignement, sans laquelle il n'y avait ni c'harte ni religion. 

3. Le maintien du droit qui appelaient a tous les francais de s'unir 
pour prier, pour etudier ou pour obtenir toute autre fin legitime 

36 



Such was the programme of the "Agence." How then was it 
received by its enemies? 

"There has recently been formed an "Agence pour la defense 
de la liberte religieuse," it has sent broadcast its prospectus, 
it is strongly recommended in a newspaper, it has selected 
legal defenders, and it promises to take care of the cases of 
harassed priests; but that is much easier in theory than in 
practice. No matter how great its zeal the "Agence" will 
have to surmount too many difficulties to arrive easily at its 
goal. Would any association, no matter if it be strong and 
more affluent than we can believe it to be, have any effect 
whatever against a carefully organized policy of the adminis- 
tration, against the orders of a Cabinet not too kindly disposed; 
the efforts of the irreligious party and the invectives of its 
newspapers ?" 

This, in part, was the opinion of its most hostile adversary. ^^^ .^^. ^^ 
But, this criticism of I'Avenir and the "Agence" for they et du rot, 
were, in reality, one and the same, is only a confession of Avril, 1831 
the moral weakness characteristic of the old party. More- 
over, such criticism could not have any other effect than to 
encourage the young Catholics, and soon after its organization 
the "Agence" was well on the way to accomplish its aim. 

Their first interference was in behalf of two persecuted 
orders in the provinces. In both cases they obtained a moderate 
success. 1® Encouraged by even this slight evidence of their dour, "E et 
influence they developed their plans still further, and formed E," 422-3 
an affiliation of all similar organizations in France. Three 
directors were given various localities to supervise; Montal- 
embert the Midi, de Coux the center and east, and Lacordaire 
the northwest of France. But this first act of affiliation is not 
the principal glory of the "Agence." Its greatest achievement 



egalement avantageuse a la religion, aux pauvres et a la civilization" 
V. I'Avenir, Nos. 18-19, November 1830. 

^' A republican commander at Aix had given the order to arrest every 
person garbed in a monk's gown, on the charge of vagrancy. This was 
directed against the Capuchines who had a house in Aix. "Agence" 
appealed to the Council of State and finally obtained the resignation of 
the commander and the restitution of the rights to the order. A 
similar incident wito similar consequences occurred at Meileray. 
For further details V. Boutard II. 186. 

37 



is the fact that by the second act of its incorporation it gave 
the primary impetus to a campaign carried on against the 
"monopole universitaire" — a combat which was to last from 
the formation of the "Agence" to the year 1850, to survive 
Louis Philippe's fall and be actively concerned in it, to reverse 
at least once the channel of exterior and interior politics, 
and finally to be victorious under a republic. The "Agence" 
then began the struggle for liberty of teaching. 

I Maf^'iS^i "''" °"^ °^ ^^^ early numbers of VAvenir for May, 1831, 
the following notice appeared : 

"The 'Agence' generale pour la defense de la liberte re- 
ligieuse" is founding a free day school (ecole gratuite 
d'externe) without the authorization of the University, at rue 
Bonaparte 5, Paris. They will teach there the elements of 
religion, French, Latin, Greek, writing and arithmetic, and 
later they will add, on a more extended plan, other branches 
of human and divine knowledge. The "Agence" desires 
that this school be free, not only because it is possible, and 
the Christian should introduce charity wherever he can, but 
also because instruction in order to become universal should 
be free, an advantage that religion alone can procure for 
society." 

"The Agence," then, was attempting to test the charter 
V Avenir, which had promised liberty of instruction, but which so far 

I Mai., 1830 had been refused on the ground that the Napoleonic "code 
universitaire" was still in force, prohibiting the founding of a 
school without direct sanction from the Council of the 
University, at Paris ; which body, again, should supervise all 
instruction therein administered. The question naturally 
arises, how had this article come into the Charter when exist- 
ing legislation already prohibited it? This question is difficult 
to answer. It was doubtless the result of a compromise be- 
tween the different parties, made at the time of the formation 
of the July Monarchy. Some would have us believe that it 
was due to the direct intervention of La Mennais. But as 
there cannot be found the shghtest evidence of any such in- 
terference on his part, this assertion cannot be accepted. It is, 
on the other hand, quite probable that La Mennais had, by 
his own works, influenced certain persons already disposed 

38 



to such a change, to suggest this article. In nearly all his 
later works La Mennais advocated a policy of liberty of V- Espe- 
teaching. As early as 1817 this liberty had. been agitated p rogues de 
elsewhere, for, the Mercure of October 1817, contains an la Rev. et de 
article by B. Constant on the subject. The question was contre 
again agitated in 1828 by Duchatel. Again, in 1830 Guizot J'^^'i^ ^" 
and Constant published a "Memorial en faveur de la liberte 
de I'Enseignement," and the two were members of an organiza- 
tion known as "la Societe de la Morale Chretienne." From 
these facts, then, it may be inferred that the leaders of the Daiv^hi^ 
doctrinaires favoured such a change in regard to the school E et E, 126 
system.i^ Its insertion was probably the natural result of 
earlier discussion. 

In 1 83 1, then, to Montalembert, de Coux and Lacordaire 
fell the duty of managing the new enterprise — an "ecole libre" 
sanctioned by the 69th article of the Charter. The School 
was opened on the 9th of May in the presence of a great 
assembly, many of whom must have come out of mere curi- 
osity. As had been foreseen by its directors, the new institu- 
tion was closed by the officers of the law on May nth, and 
the principals were ordered to appear before the tribunal. This 
was just what the "Agence" had wanted; now the Charter 
would be tested legally, and public opinion would be called 
upon to assert itself. 

"We desire to set before citizens selected at random, this 
University that has had twenty years in which to gain the 
love of the families. We are all children. What had it to 
fear? Why has not the University asked that a jury decide 
between us ? We who are nothing, it is we who defy it ; and 
our challenge is, to select by lot, wherever they will, twelve 
fathers of families and they shall be our judges. We de- 
clare this before you, gentlemen, who are the magistrates of 
the country, before all those of our fellow-citizens who are 
here present, before all of France, and since the University 
will not accept, we will demand the jury to whom every 
political transgression is answerable.''^*' 

"V. en plus — National, 6 Mai, 1830. Article by Thiers. Further- 
more, LaFayette in his proclamation to the people made them the 
promise of the liberty of instruction. 

^" I'Avenir, 4 Juin 183 1. 

39 



Fate, in a curious way, seemed to favour the accused, for 
on the very eve of the trial, Montalembert succeeded his 
father in the chamber of Peers, and therefore the case was 
taken before the highest court of appeal in France. The 
Ministry demanded a condemnation and the chamber acceded, 
but the penalty (lOO francs) was so small that the verdict 
practically amounted to an acquittal.-^ 

The outcome of the trial had considerable effect upon the 
Liberal Catholics. First it brought out the distinction between 
the Liberals de fait and the Liberals de mot, and secondly 
it laid firm the foundations for the great combat of 1841-1846; 
the new movement was not to die out. The government, on 
the other hand, did not gain much profit for this litigation and 
the preceding one, had not added to the glory it so much 
needed or its reputation for the liberalism it had so loudly 
protested. Two articles, then, had been given a trial, and 
had proven utter shams ; the liberty of the press, and the 
liberty of public instruction. The former, the Liberal Cath- 
olics had tested in concert with other papers (the Globe 
and the Presse) but the latter they had tried alone. In 
so doing they had unveiled and shown in its complete and 
true light the weakness and inherent hypocrisy of the existing 
government. This had given heart to the Liberals and had 
assisted them in their own programme. Had Louis Philippe 
and his ministers but followed their advice many unpleasant 
complications might have been avoided, and La Mennais' party 
might have been of great service to the France of 1830. 

The entire interest of I'Avenir and the "Agence" how- 
ever, had not been centered about the trial alone. In a few 
months the "Agence" had made magnificent progress ; its mem- 
bership had been more than doubled, and the Council, having 
affiliated the various provincial organizations of a similar sort 
in France, was not content with this work. They now pro- 
ceeded to put into operation a plan they had long had in 
prospect, and one which in a single instance at least, did 
enjoy permanent success. Formerly the "Agence" had de- 

^ A propos of the trial Boutard II 197 relates an interesting incident: 
"M. de Coux parla apres M. de Montalembert, et il fut moins heureux. 
Un mot lui echappa qui dechaina dans la cliambre haute une telle 
tempete qu'il dut renouncer a son plaidoyer. ... II avait designe Louis 
Philippe par cette periphrase le roi provisoire de la France." 

40 



clared itself the defenders of the oppressed, and by this it 
had been understood that its officers meant to protect the 
oppressed in France. Now, however, it became evident that 
they wished to extend their influence to all parts of Europe 
and the new world as well. Branch societies were established 
throughout Christendom. M. de Coux was given charge of 
Belgium and the United States; Lacordaire of Switzerland 
and Italy; and Montalembert of Poland, Sweden, Germany 
and Ireland. The plan was to seize upon the liberal movement 
already active in these countries, and cathoHcise it. Such a 
policy became known as the Liberal Catholic system of 
"international ultramontanism." 

It was in Belgium, especially, that the "Agence" had most 
success. I'Avenir and its illustrious editor were very pop- 
ular in that country. In fact, it is said that many of the 
articles appearing irii I'Avenir on one day were reprinted 
on the morrow in a similar paper at Louvain. Now Belgium, 
like France, had had a revolution, but there was this distinction : 
one of the fundamental causes had been of a religious nature, 
the incompatibility of the citizens in the Kingdom of the 
Netherlands, one half of whom were Roman CathoHcs and 
one half Protestants. Furthermore, the Roman Catholics 
were liberals, and when the Revolution broke out they appHed 
the doctrines of La Mennais — of whose ideas they had long 
since expressed sincere approval. 

A correspondent from Brussels wrote: 

*'En France les doctrines liberales n'approchent du 

sanctuaire qu'avec une sorte de timidite. En Belgique, au 

contraire, elles montent jusqu'a I'autel avec le pretre et en 

descendent avec lui pour se repandre, en meme temps que sa 

parole .... Ici, on ne congoit pas la religion separee de la 
liberte."22 

Many times in the later struggle, champions of religious 
liberty were to point with eager and envious hand to the 
Kingdom of Belgium. 



Boutard, 

II, 20I 



I'Avenir, 

10 Avril, 

183 1 



I'Avenir, 

30 Oct., 

1830 



I'Avenir, 

5 Aout, 

183 1 



"The same writer further points out the similarity of the two in 
their common opposition to Gallicanism, by the following statement : 
"Rien de plus incomprehensible pour un beige qu'um pretre Gallican." 
I'Avenir 5 Aoiit 1831. 



41 



Ami de la 

Religion et 

du roi, 10 

Fevrier, 

1831 



London 

Times, 

April, 16, 

1831 



V, I'Avcnir, 

Nos., 16 
Avril et 17 
Sept., 1831 



I'Avenir, 12 
Dec, 1830 



This close religious alliance was further cemented by the 
very evident desire of the French government to have a 
friendly and peaceful neighbour. In regard to Belgium, then 
the July Monarchy and the Liberal Catholics were at one. 
Not so the Gallicans, however, who complained bitterly and 
regretted the old regime in Belgium as well as in France 
Moreover, outside of France there were parties who, while 
upholding the existing monarchy, condemned its policy and 
the propaganda of certain of its parties : 

"France has too extensive an idea of her duty if she 
imagines herself called upon to prevent intervention in every 
part of the world as well as in Belgium. The new State of 
Belgium borders upon her territory and an aggression on her 
neighbours to put down principles which were common to 
both would be an aggression against France. But Poland is 
not in the same predicament It lies at the distance of several 
hundred miles from France with the barrier of Germany 
interposed. To send an army to Warsaw would therefore 
necessarily kindle the flames of a whole continent. If Don 
Quixote had redressed only the wrongs of his own village 
he might not have been a hero, but he would have avoided 
the commission of mischief and the charge of madness in his 
erratic excursion to find and redress them." 

It is true, there were many eyes in France turned toward 
the struggling Poles, but, in the end, the government was 
not to heed the appeals made in their behalf. Two parties 
principally led this agitation, the Liberal Catholics and their 
now somewhat suspicious allies, the Republicans. The 
"Agence" and its party watched with many heart-burnings 
and great interest the progress of events in that kingdom, and 
gave them their moral support, their prayers, and even a cer- 
tain amount of financial assistance. Montalembert had 
signalled the commencement of the struggle in the following 
terms : 

"At last she has uttered her cry of awakening, at last she 
has shaken ofif her chains and threatens with them the heads 
of her barbarous oppressors, this proud and generous Poland, 
so slandered, so oppressed, so dear to all free and Catholic 
hearts." 



42 



Some, too, of his more bold associates would have 
joined with LaFayette and the Republicans who sought to 
lend force to aid a people struggling with a cruel tyrant. One 
party favoured it as a fight for nationality and political liberty 
while the other cried out in its behalf for these reasons 
and also because it was a struggle against the "nationalization" 
of a Catholic faith.^^ The former, through LaFayette, based 
their plea on the nation's safety : 

"Whenever any country in Europe, whatever it may be, 
attempts to recover its rights, it is a direct act of hostiUty 
against us to interfere, not only because it revives the princi- 
ples of Pilnitz and the Holy Alliance, and justifies future ag- 
gression against our liberty and independence, but because 
common sense assures us that it is the same as saying : 'Wait, 
we are going to crush your national auxiliaries, the friends of 
liberty in other countries, and when they have ceased to exist, 
we will fall upon you with our whole weight.' "-* 

Once more the government's selfish policy was demonstrated, 
A weak show of compliance with so many demands was all it 
attempted. This attitude did not help the July Monarchy. 
Russia, more distrustful than ever, kept aloof from Louis 
Philippe. 

In Germany and in Italy, too, the influence of the "Agence" 
was felt. There will be a better occasion to note its relations 
with Italy in the next chapter. Among the German states 
there was already in operation a sort of government V, I'Avenir, 
bureaucracy which sought to limit the influence of Rome in ^^°- ^ Mars 
church affairs. The distinction between Old and Young 1831 
Catholics was increased by the growth of the Jung Deutsch- 
land School. In Munich the Doellinger group under the 

** Le Mennais, their leader, was to utter a year later these powerful 
words on the fate of Poland : "Je vois un peuple combattre comme 
I'archange Michel combattoit centre Satan. Ses coups sont terribles, 
mais il est nu, et son ennemi est convert d'une epaisse armure. y I'Avenir 

O Dieu ! il tombe ; il est frappe a mort, non, il n'est que blesse : Nos. i Mars 
Marie, la Vierge — mere, I'enveloppe de son manteau, lui sourit, et et is^Avril, 
I'importe pour un peu de temps hors de combat." Paroles d'un 
Croyant. II. 

"'Commenting on this statement the London Times remarked: "The 
gallant general has here laid down too extensive a scale of duty for 
his country." London Times, Jan. 18, 1831. 

43 



183 1 



name of the "Round Table" were seeking to combat govern- 
ment influence, and were eagerly watching the progress of 
Boutard, affairs in France. Later, they were to become the hosts of 
La Mennais and the first to console him in the dark hour 
of his condemnation. Still farther north as well, the influence 
of the "Agence" had spread and was aiding in the re-estab- 
lishment of the old Swedish priesthood, while in Ireland, the 
Liberal Catholics displayed keen interest, and solicited sub- 
scriptions for the cause of O'Connell's famished countrymen. 
This last interest did not disappear with the dissolution of 
the "Agence." 

It was at the very moment when all seemed to be progressing 
so well and when the Liberal Catholics appeared to be weather- 
ing the storms around them, that I'Avenir published what 
has been known as its "testament publique." Having estab- 
lished their power the Liberal Catholics now sought to bind 
it by a great political union. It proved to be the last great 
public act of I'Avenir, and by this act alone it fell. In 
appearance the "Acte d'Union" must have seemed immense, 
even grotesque; in reality, it was the logical development 
of their principle of "international ultramontanism" declared 
some months before, and La Mennais' traditional love of 
order. 

The "Acte" is divided into three parts, a consideration of 
the spiritual rights of society, of its temporal rights and, 
the consequent duty of the State. In the first section, basing 
the argument entirely on the ground that the spiritual side of 
society must be separate and absolutely independent of in- 
tervention on the part of the political power, the "Acte" 
establishes the right of liberty of conscience and belief (culte), 
of liberty of the press, and of instruction. In Part II, these 
three rights being established, constitutional power (govern- 
ment) has only the right to intervene in temporal afifairs. 
But here again the government's power should be so limited 
that it does not prevent those personally interested from 
taking part in the administration of local afifairs. The gov- 
ernment should always remember that its principal duties are 
those of maintaining political unity, a general and agreeable 
harmony between the various particular administrations, of 

44 



safeguarding the general interest and supervising the defense 
of the State. All these other things accepted, Part III recom- 
mends a more extensive application of the law of justice and 
charity even to the point of educating and preparing the 
masses that they may, by degrees, be enabled to participate 
more and more in all the social privileges due them.-^ 

The "Acte d'Union" was indeed for France the Magna 
Charta of the nineteenth century. 

Such was the document that brought forth protestations 
of horror from ministers of state, prelates at Rome and 
kings who heretofore had prided themselves on their quasi- 
liberal policies. To the eyes of the Twentieth Century, and 
to our own country in particular, it seems little more than 
common sense — a reformed and spiritualized church; a 
liberal and republican form of government. But to those of 
1830 it conjured up all the terrors and petty ambitions of 
the Revolution, the slaughters and pitiless tyrannies of 
Napoleon, of a Church which would not serve their purpose 
and of a God whose real attributes most of them had forgotten. 
The "Acte d'Union" was an anachronism, the ideals of its 
authors were past the narrow comprehension of the early 
nineteenth century. The State had lived so long from its 
very creators that it no longer knew them; the Church 
had wandered so far from its flock that it mistook them for 
the greedy inheritors of its enemies in 1790. This 
was the situation, La Mennais had been completely mis- 
understood. A farcical examination followed, and then a 
papal bull. Here again, La Mennais' actions were misunder- 
stood. There has been talk of forged letters and the 
deception of a papal legate, but these must be left aside, 
for there is not sufficient evidence to substantiate such 
assertions. But this evidence, in turn, is really unnecessary 
for the subsequent action of La Mennais at this time (No- 
vember, 1831) is a sufficient justification of his faith and a 
proof that he did not know that his works had the disapproval 
of the one who was for him the highest authority. Letters 
had come from Rome, but the same words had come from 
Ami de la Religion et du roi and from the French gov- 

^^ "For the Acte d'Union" in toto V. Appendix I. 

45 



ernment. He knew not where he stood. Peter's successor 
had remained silent. 

The rest of the story is quickly told. Alarmed by the up- 
roar they saw around them, by the unmistakable signs of 
hostility from the higher clergy in France and by the de- 
mands of the Conservative majority, the Liberal Catholics 
resolved to go to Rome, following the advice of their youngest 
member. In November, the last number of I'Avenir 
appeared : 

"If we retire from the field for a moment, we do not 
do so because of weariness or still less, because of discourage- 
ment, but simply to follow the example of the soldiers of 
Israel in other times, to go to consult the Lord in Shiloh. Our 
faith and our intentions have been questioned. In fact, at 
this time, who is not attacked? We leave, therefore, for a 
brief time, the field of battle in order to fulfill another duty 
equally important. The staff of the pilgrim in our hands, 
we will journey to the Eternal City and there, prostrate at 
the feet of the Pontiff whom Jesus Christ had appointed as 
a guide and master to his disciples, we will say: "O Father, 
look upon a few of your flock who are accused of being 
rebellious to your infallible authority; here they are before 
you, read their minds; there is nothing that they would hide. 
If even one of their thoughts is contrary to yours, they will 
disavow it forever. You are the rule of their theories ; indeed 
they have never known another. O Father, pronounce for them 
the word that gives life, because it gives light, and may thy 
hand extend to bless their faithfulness and their love.' "^® 
Later, La Mennais said : 

"En France on n'a des yeux que derriere la tete. As far 
as my theories are concerned, I believed then and I still 
believe that we have not advocated any others than those 
upheld by the Holy See. If I am mistaken, they will tell 
me, and I will cry from the housetops their words. While 
waiting, we will be silent." 

But painful revelations awaited at Rome "the pilgrims of 
\o^™^ God and of Liberty." 

Ined. de La ^'< Ami de la Religion et du roi announced the immediate condem- 
vue des nation of I'Avenir with a malice hardly pardonable. For this 

deux mondes controversy see: Ami de la Religion et du roi, ly Novembre 1831. 

I Nov., 1905 y^isQ Ami de la Religion et du roi, Lettre de Waille, 26 November 

1831. 

46 



I'Avenir, 

15 Nov., 

1831 



CHAPTER III 



THE FALL OF THE LA MENNAIS MOVEMENT 



Shortly before leaving Paris La Mennais had remarked: 
"This accursed politics is everywhere the ruin of religion," 
and his biographer has commented: "this observation, only 
too true, reveals the malentendu that already existed between 
La Mennais and the Court of Rome." 

Subsequent facts bear out this statement; the craving for 
power still existed in the Eternal City. But, there is still 
another sense in which the abbe Boutard's comment is true. 
The malentendu existed also between La Mennais and the 
Court of France. It is a curious and yet none the less typical 
fact that La Mennais when the Acte d'Union was promulgated, 
had not taken, or else did not wish to take, into consideration 
the political conditions in his own country. If he had done 
so it is not unreasonable to suppose that he would have waited. 
Truly, in this instance he had not well calculated his time. 
"The Acte d'Union" had been formulated while the ministry 
of the "mouvement" was still in power, but that body was now 
fast approaching the time of its fall. The Period of Forma- 
tion was over, and the Period of Parliamentary struggle was 
already beginning. Louis Philippe, alarmed when he found 
that he could not make peace at home and abroad through 
the efforts of the progressives, had decided to call the "Re 
sistance" to power. Accordingly, on the thirteenth of March 
he formed a more severe and more forceful ministry ; the 
monarchy could no longer afford to waste time with a weak 
and indefinite party. At home they needed a strong resistance 
to the recriminations of the Republicans and Legitimists ; 
abroad a ministry, capable of settling the difficult questions 
of Belgium and the London Conference, powerful enough to 
strengthen the English alliance, and above all to adopt a con- 
sistent and definite attitude. This new government, it was 



E. Forgues 
Corres. Ined. 
I, II. Bou- 
tard, II, 269 



V. London 
Times, 

March 16, 

183 1. Dis- 
patch 

from Paris 



Moniteur, 

18 Mars, 

1831 



V. Hille- 

brand, I, 

213 



47 



hoped, would explain to uneasy Europe, considering further 

concerted action against liberal governments, the meaning of 

that ambiguous term — "non-intervention. "^ A policy of deceit 

Memoirs, I, was no longer possible. The man whom the king chose as 

215. Dupin, prime minister, was a typical bourgeois whose creed was his 

218. de ' class and his king. Like his predecessor, a banker, Casimir 

Barante, Perier would not, so the king thought, be unmindful of the 
Lettres 7 . <3 a 

Mars, 1831. economic needs of the country — a question becoming more 
L. Blanc, I, serious every day. To a certain extent Louis PhiHppe was 
not deceived in this; Casimir Perier was considerate of the 
large vested interests. The new minister possessed at least 
the quality of exactness ; he was stubborn to an extreme, and 
the country soon had reason to believe that he would not 
choose a middle course in regard to any one policy.- His 
plan, therefore, was typical and his view of the July Monarchy 
may be said to be the view of his class. For the July Rev- 
olution, he had agreed with his confreres in the followin!^ 
statement : "We have not had a revolution, we have experi- 
enced only a slight change in the person at the head of the 
State." So much for his attitude to the monarchy expressed 
in the characteristically clear and concise form. He had also 
upheld the principle of a double policy; for France order 
and authority without any restriction of liberty, for external 
affairs a beneficial peace because, as he put it, "French blood 
belongs to France ajone." With this in view he selected his 
colleagues, the great majority of whom belonged to his own 

* This Perier proceeded to do in his first speech before the Pari, 
V. Perier Discours, 18 Mars 1831. 

" The new regime possessed all the strength that can possibly belong 
to the mendacity of early concessions, it was founded and nothing 
remained but to defend it. The natural course of things therefore called 
a violent minister to ofifice. . . . He entered it with an immense stock 
of angry passions, a pride without bounds, a certain fierce impatience 
to trample on his enemies. An opulent banker and always on the 
alert, the noise of factions had caused him mortal alarms and he 
burned to avenge the anguish of his fears. . . . Fully convinced how- 
ever, that in saving the interests of the middle class he would serve 
his own, he threw his whole existence into the conflict. The crown 
too he wished to save, and he rushed to its defense, but without illusion, 
devotedness or love, and simply because he chose to support in royalty 
an institution protective to banking interests." L. Blanc. I. 412 and 
Chap. IX. Bk. IV. 

48 



party, while he was aided to some extent in the chambers by 
Guizot, Dupin and Thiers.^ 

The first interest of the new Premier was to silence the 
Republican party who, during the preceding administration had 
made such violent complaints against the pacific policy of the 
government. He attacked the Society of the Peoples' Friend, 
really a revival of the old Jacobin Club; its members, Cavaig- 
nac, Teste and Fortou, were prosecuted, but they were finally 
acquitted. Thereupon the Premier persuaded Louis Philippe 
to dissolve the Chambers. Accordingly, the dissolution was 
announced for the last day of May and new elections were 
ordered for the fifth day of July. The Chambers, however, 
were not dissolved before they had passed a new law (April 
15) reducing the franchise and doubling the electorate. There 
were now 200,000 electors out of a total population of 30,000,- 
000. Shortly afterward the riots of the 14th of June and 
14th of July occurred, the latter beginning at the Bastile, as 
had happened some forty years before. Moreover if the 
Premier did not succeed in the impeachment of the Republicans 
in April, the returns of the July elections only served to 
heighten his anxiety ; and abroad, as in France, people began 
to fear for the dynasty. 

Outside the borders of France matters were not much better, 
and the position of Louis Philippe's government was conse- 
quently less secure. 

"Poland tottering to its fall, and threatening to bring down 
with it the old preponderance of the West ; the Papacy violently 
reinstated in its temporal sovereignty, and thereby become once 
more the accomplishment of all earthly tyrannies ; four powers 
labouring hard to repair, to the detriment of one, the Euro- 
pean balance which had been disturbed by the emancipation of 
Belgium, lastly France abandoning the guardianship of the 
world to the hands of some proud and incompetent men." 

* Casimir — President of the Council, Minister of Interior. 
M. Barette — Garde des sceaux. 
Baron Louis — Minister of Finance. 
Marechal Soult — Minister of War. 
I'Amiral Rigny — Minister of Marine. 

Comte de Montalivet — Minister of Public Instruction and Sects. 
Conte d'Argent — Minister of Commerce and Public Works. 



7 Mars, 
de Barante, 

1831 

L. Blanc, I, 

414 

Thureau 
Dangin, 
11, 29 . 



V. London 

Times, 

June 23, 

183 1 

Dispatch 

from 

Paris 



49 



These were the conditions confronting the new chambers 
when they convened to hear the king's speech on July 23rd. 
Of many important questions such as the Italian States, the 
London Conference and the hopeless aftitude of the govern- 
ment to Poland, that discussed by the Deputies most fully 
^"^' ' concerned the abolition of hereditary peerage.* This project 
had not the entire sympathy of Perier, nor of such of his 
satellites as Guizot, Thiers and Royer-Collard ; but the bour- 
geoisie were so persistent in their demand for the revision 
of Article Twenty-three of the Charter that, in the end, a law 
was proposed providing for a system of nomination by the 
king from a legally constituted list of eminent men and men 
already in office. The law aroused, of course, bitter oppo- 
sition among the nobles, but Casimir Perier's reply to their 
protest was the Royal Ordinance of November 19th creating 
thirty-six new peers. By means of this, the law, slightly 
changed, was passed. The discussion attending the new law, 
however, brought with it another evil, the renewed activity 
of the Legitimists exhorted by such men as 'Chateaubriand 
and Berryer. Their leaders, happily for Perier, were not men 
fit to be political agitators and, except for the affair of La 
Vendee and the duchesse de Berri episode, no other signs of 
hostility appeared. But all these incidents, however small 
in importance they may have seemed, were none the less signifi- 
cant, and had the opposition been more centralized and less 
divided, the July Monarchy might have been seriously en- 
dangered. There are, in addition, two events that assume 
a still greater importance in the calendar of the political 
progress made under Louis Philippe. Between November 22 
and December 30, 1831, occurred the revolt of the silk weavers 
at Lyons, and a few months later a similar revolt at Grenoble. 
The importance of these two uprisings lies in the fact that 
they are the signs of the birth of a socialist party, springing 
from the general discontent prevalent in France because of 
economic changes, and also from the divisions in the Re- 
publicans and St. Simonians. This new party, about a score 
of years later, was to play a principal role in the formation 
of a new government. 

*For an ex. of the agitation upon this subject v.: "Are 100,000 
citizens 30,000,000 of men?" Cormenin, 1831. 

50 



At the same time, however, that Perier was busied in a 
vain attempt to establish order and prosperity in France, other 
events were happening outside her borders, which were of 
equal importance to her future. The Polish question had been 
treated by Louis Philippe in a cowardly fashion, and Casimir 
Perier could not have altered the results of this policy even 
had he wished to do so. But there remained the difficult 
questions of the new kingdom of Belgium and of the Italian 
States. 

Upon the separation of Belgium from the kingdom of the 
Netherlands in August 1830, the Congress of London took 
the matter up, and the Five Powers agreed to settle the prob- 
lem according to their common interests. The Belgians had 
themselves offered the crown to the due d'Aumale, but Louis 
Philippe had not allowed his son to accept it. This action 
was somewhat of a relief to the rest of Europe. The Congress 
subsequently offered the throne in the name of the provisional 
government at Brussels to Leopold of Coburg ; and he accepted, 
not without first concluding a secret agreement of friendship 
and marriage with the Orleans family. The Congress then 
imagined that its work was ended, but such was not the case. 
For William of the Netherlands protested against the treaty of 
the Eighteen Articles, and renouncing the Armistice of Novem- 
ber 5, 1830, entered Belgium. Thereupon Louis Philippe 
sent a French army to the aid of Leopold. The act, an idea 
of Casimir Perier, created great consternation in Europe, 
for, it was construed as a direct violation of the principle 
of "non-intervention," as they understood it. Later, after 
order had been restored, the French army withdrew, but not 
until the king of the Netherlands had retired to the lines 
agreed upon the beginning of the armistice. Shortly after- 
wards, the Congress at London drew up the treaty of the 
Twenty-four Articles (November 5th), and the signature of 
King William was all that was necessary to assure peace. 

So ended the year 183 1. In France the aspects were 
not good, discontent with the internal policy and a growing 
hostility to the government increased by the pursuit of the 
Republicans. With the foreign policy, also, there was equal 
disgust, particularly at the attempt to make a nominal show 



Metternich, 
I, 44 



L. Blanc, II 
457, et seq 



V. d'Haus- 
sonville 
Hist, I. 
Ch. IV 



Bourgeois, 
III, Ch. I 



Moniteur, 
Mars. 15-30, 
Aout 18-30, 

Nov. 18-30 



London 
Times, 

Nos. for 
Nov. 18-31 



SI 



of force which had been judged rather mal a propos by the 
several countries interested. 

The year 1832 opened dismally; the flattering felicitations 
paid to the king had not kept from the ears of the government 
the noise of riots and street fighting, such as those of the 
Fourth of January, the Tours de Notre Dame — a Republican 
Conspiracy — and the Legitimist Revolt of the rue des 
Prouvaires the fourth of February. Discontent was every- 
where manifest. Armand Carrel had not hesitated to put 
into print his Republican sentiments, Beranger's verses were 
distributed widespread, and Perier knew that the prosecution 
of the press alone would not stop the progress of a movement 
so dangerous to him and to France.^ 

Furthermore, the question of the budget would soon be 
coming before the Chambers ; the people must be distracted 
and their eyes turned in another direction during the discus- 
sion of so serious a matter. Then too, Perier scented another 
danger. That same demand for military conquest that had 
appeared at such regular intervals so many times before, was 
gaining its hold on the people and making them impatient. 
Perier knew he must satisfy this craving or the French might 
come again to regret the "glorious days" of the Revolution. 
It was Italy and the Pope that offered him the occasion for 

'^ The following extract from Beranger is interesting as a type of 
the political verse of the period : 

"Comme un bon reve es tu done disparue, 
O Liberte si chere a mes refrains ! 
Perier gouverne, et la France est vendue, 
Peuple geant subit le joug des nains, 
Gisquet t'assomme et Vienne t'empare 
Vient te donner le coup de pied de I'ane; 
Pauvre Lion, n'es tu pas musele? 

Rassurez-vous, Castillon et Tartare, 
Peu vous importe ici le genre humain, 
II ne s'agit que d'aider un avare 
A depouiller un Royal orphelin. 
Vous le voyez, c'est pour cette oeuvre unique 
Que notre sang dans Paris a coule. 
Mourrez Pologne, languissez Belgique, 
Notre Lion, n'est-il pas musele?" 

— From "Le Lion Musele." 

52 



which he was seeking. Moreover, in deciding to take a hand 
in Itahan affairs Perier hoped to accompHsh two things, to 
satisfy the general demand and to render himself more secure. 
An intervention in Italy would be interpreted at home as the 
upholding of the right of a state to settle its own affairs. 
Austria was interfering in Italy; a protest on the part of the 
government would be a pose of liberalism for the July Mon- 
archy, and an armed intervention redound to its glory. Then 
too there was still another advantage ; by taking part in Italian 
troubles Perier would be embarrasing the protests of the 
liberals at home. This would be safe, for, he might ask the 
Pope to grant political liberties, but he certainly did not expect 
the Pope to accede to his request. Furthermore he would 
render null and void any encouragement that the liberal fac- 
tion in the Roman Catholic Church might have intended to 
offer in France to "those other liberals, those very members 
of the clergy who, lacking good education and knowing only 
the practices of religion, hated the present liberal institutions 
of France and attacked society "in general," and against whom 
so much was now being said in the Chamber of Deputies." 

In regard to the church Perier, if he took any definite 
stand at all, was with the more numerous and less active 
party of Gallicans.*' This new interest of the Perier Ministry, 
then, was not to assist the cause of La Mennais, and whether 
it was intentional or no, the Premier's policy had a direct effect 
on the fate of the three editors of I'Avenir. It was to serve 
a threefold purpose, then, to the eyes of his countrymen — 
to satisfy the malcontents by a show of "gloire" ; to quiet 
the extreme Liberals in Italy whose constant agitation had 
served to keep alert the ultra-liberals — the party "du mouve- 
ment," and lastly, to strike once and for all the Holy Alliance 
based on the principle of interference and in defiance of 



V. National, 

2 Janvier, 

1832 



Moniteur, 

17 Fevrier, 

183 1 



V. also 

21 Fevrier, 

183 1 



* He is said to have remarked : "La liberte des cultes sera protegee 
comme le droit le plus precieux de conscience qui Tinvoquent." (Thu- 
reau-Dangin. Mon. Juilet II. 68.) But, under his ministery the "Ecole 
Libre" had been condemned and the "Acte d'Union" protested against. 
Furthermore certain numbers of Ami de la Religion et du roi (April 
1831 — January 1832) speak of the Premier in favorable terms: "On 
assure qu'il blame les vexations exercees en tant de lieu contre le 
clerge." 



53 



Hillebrand, 
11, 203 



Barry, 
VIII, 217 



Guizot, II, 
292 



Metternich, 
IV, 122 Seq 



Barante, IV, 

Lettres, 27 

Mars, 1831. 

Dep. Ofif. 

No. 45, 1831 



which Perier had inaugurated a poHcy of non-intervention. 
In the eyes of the Premier, however, this diplomacy was to 
serve a much smaller end — that of a mere distraction. The 
inconsistency of such a policy is patent; why should Perier 
object to the Austrian interference in the rebellion of the 
Legations when he himself had allowed France to intervene 
in Belgium? The fight, then, was not one of high principles, 
it was directed solely against Austrian influence in Bologna, 
the Romagna and the Marches. It was a good time for action ; 
Russia was occupied with Poland, Prussia with the West and 
England was Protestant. 

One author has said: "Civil War is the only word that 
will describe the condition of Italy and the Papal States 
during the years 1820-1848." Italy, reduced to a geographical 
expression by the treaties of 1814-1815, composed of two 
large kingdoms, the Papal States, and a number of duchies, 
had become a real center of restlessness, but it was particularly 
in the Legations that this condition prevailed. They had 
hoped for a Liberal Pope. Taught by Gioberti they had even 
dreamed of a theocratic republic, such as La Mennais had 
predicted for them, but to no avail. In November 1830, Pius 
VIII died and the College of Cardinals was convened. They 
had been in session two months disputing the demand of Albania 
Austria's creature, that the successful candidate should upon his 
election appoint him as Papal Secretary, when a message 
was secretly introduced into the Conclave from the Duke of 
Modena. In this he informed the wrangling prelates that a 
serious revolution had broken out in the Romagna. Thus 
the election was finally precipitated, and the fourth of Feb- 
ruary 1 83 1 Cardinal Capellari ascended St. Peter's throne. 
He took the name of Gregory XVI. Upon his accession the 
new pope found himself entirely without means to put down 
the rebellion, and he was forced to turn at once to the sole 
consistent defender of "Legitimacy and the Temporal Su- 
premacy of the Pope" — Austria, still ruled by Metternich. 
The Austrian troops entered the Papal States. Immediately 
France, through its ambassador M. de Sainte-Aulaire, pro- 
tested, and Austria agreed to withdraw her troops. It was 
decided that order should be maintained in the Legations 



54 



by the guarantee of the Powers, and by July 1831 the troops 
had evacuated the Romagna. Furthermore, by an official 
note (May 1831) the Powers recommended to the Pope that 
he try to ameliorate the conditions in the Papal States. This 
he promised to do, but his promises amounted to very little 
and the condition of the Legations was not improved in any 
way. A conference of the ambassadors to France was then 
held in Paris, and it was suggested that a State be named 
which should assist the Pope, as the Papal forces seemed 
incapable of themselves overpowering the rebels in the very 
likely event of further trouble. Perier nominated the King- 
dom of Sardinia but the Powers held that Sardinia was not 
strong enough. The French Premier then announced that 
should Austria intervene in the event of another revolt, France 
would find it necessary to take Ancona as a guarantee. Thus 
one fact, at least, is evident, the warning had been given and 
the taking of Ancona could not have been the unexpected event 
they pretended at Rome. 

Perier had hailed the withdrawal of the Austrians as a 
moral victory for French diplomacy, but this happy illusion 
was not to last long. On the first of December the Ministry 
was interpellated by the Chamber of Deputies on the subject 
of the Legations and Perier again reasserted the principles 
of "non-intervention" as he understood it — that France would 
not allow other powers to intervene in the affairs of free and 
independent states. This word, it is thought, gave courage to 
the Italian Liberals, and before the end of the year, Menotti, 
Mazzini and their party had stirred up another revolution.^ 
The Austrian troops again crossed the border, while Metter- 
nich once more explained this action by saying that they had 



Memoran- 
dum de Casi- 

mir Perier 

sur I'occupa- 

tion 

d'x\nc6ne 



Dep. Off. 
No. 75 



Memoran- 
dum 
C. Perier 



d'Hausson- 
ville Hist., 
I, 32 et seq 



V. Moniteur, 
18-20 Juillet, 

183 1 

Journal des 

Debate, 

ig Juillet, 

1831 



''A propos of Perier's remarks (December 2) Metternich is said to 
have commented : "C'est ce mot de non-intervention qui a donne aux 
revolutionnaires Italiens le courage de tenter la fortune." Bourgeois 
III 68. 

"The reports from Tenera, Modena, Florence and every other quarter, 
unanimously give expression to the opinion that the whole Italian 
revolution is due solely to the action of the Paris committees based 
on the assertion of the principle of non-intervention." Metternich 
Mem. V. to Apponyi, March 18, 1831 — Dep. Off. 990. 



Moniteur, 

: December, 

1831 



55 



to come to put down a Bonapartist uprising near the frontier 
of France** Tliere can be no doubt but that he was trying 
to discredit the French in general as well as to show in 
particular the weakness of the July Monarchy's position and 
policy. His instructions to his own ambassadors bear out 
this impression. In reality, he was already active in discredit- 
ing France at the Court of Rome with the result that when 
V \*^o'^F6 ' ^^^ French troops did enter Ancona the Pope believed that 

1832 they had come to incite rebellion. 
^i^04?^F'' ^^^ thirty-first of January M. Perier had sent a despatch 
to M. de Barante, ambassador at Turin, announcing the 
departure of a detachment for Ancona; 
"Monsieur le baron, 

I have just received the despatch with which you have 

honoured me, telling me of the entrance of the Austrians 

Dep. Off., jj^|-Q j-j^g Romagna. I hasten to send a courier to M. de 

31 janv.', Sainte-Aulaire instructing him to demand the cession "de la 

^^32 place et du port" of Ancona to our force, of land and sea ; 

a measure to which the Court of Rome has already actually 

acceded." 

This is a curious document, for it presents a rather inter- 
esting point. Had Gregory XVI, in sympathy with the "parti 
Journal des ^^ resistance," intimated to Sainte Aulaire his consent to the 

Dehats, French occupation of Ancona? Unfortunately, as far as 
F 6 b I '^ 18^1 

can be found, there are only a few facts to substantiate this 

suggestion, and they are all indirect witnesses. The first 

is the condition of the Papal Department of State. There 

had never existed a clearly defined understanding between 

Gregory XVI and Bernetti, the Papal Secretary. In fact. 

Affaires de throughout the Pontificate of Gregory, the Pope's own state- 
ome, 119 j^gji^g ^o individuals and the official declarations of the Roman 
Court were absolutely contradictory, and seldom, if ever, at 
one. The second indication of the existence of some sort 
of an understanding between Louis Philippe and the Pope, 
is the fact that the French officers, Gaullois and Combes, 

Boutard, II, gained access to the citadel of Ancona by telling the comman- 
313 der that they had come with the consent of the Pope. All 

' V. Metternich to Apponyi. March 9, 1831, Dep. Off. 998. Cf. with 
later reference. Mem. V. 

S6 



histories agree on this point and are corroborated by Casimir 

Perier's memorandum. The third piece of evidence is still 

more indirect. Shortly afterwards the Pope made a bargain 

with the Tsar; in return for his advice to the Poles to 

submit, the Tsar was to aid Gregory against his enemies. 

If France was in Ancona without authorization why did not «£ g^ g » 

Gregory call upon the Austrians to put them out? They 425 

would have been only too delighted to have done so. Why 

did he call in a third person, unless he was legally impeded 

from asking Austria to oust the French? The reasonable 

inference, it seems, is that the Pope tacitly allowed the French 

to enter as well as the Austrians, and that he may have 

verbally communicated this decision to M. de Sante Aulaire. _ , 

. . ^ ., ,1 London 

The French troops once ensconced m Ancona, Gregory mildly Times, 

protested, but to no avail, and by the arrangement of April 16, ^^^- ^5, 1832 

1832, it was agreed that the French should remain in Ancona 

until the Austrians had evacuated the Legations.® 

What, then, was the result of this complication? From 
the point of view of foreign politics it did not strengthen 
the position of the French government. Metternich had 
gained his end, he had discredited one of the fundamental 
doctrines of the July Monarchy and displayed its shameless 
inconsistency.^" 

This opinion, furthermore, was held by other countries as 
well. So it was that by the Ancona affair Metternich accom- 
plished the first step in his twofold plan to abolish the quasi- 

*The troops stayed until 1838. 

" "The French government establishes a new principle ; the principle 
of intervention in everything, which is in direct contradiction with 
the principle of non-intervention, which has been the political pro- 
gramme of France since 1830. If non-intervention was folly, the 
new political code is a menace ; neither the one nor the other will ever 
acquire the force of law in the Code of Nations. 

"The French circular, however, will have two useful results, the 
first is the inference which the Italian Liberals will draw from it, that 
the French government is false to them in their expectations; the 
second lies in the fact that at every honourable opportunity, any inde- 
pendent government will have the right of employing it for its own 
ends, at the cost of those who first enunciated and applied the principle 
in all its attendant consequences." Metternich, Mem. V. to Apponyi, 
March 9, 1832, Desp. Off. 1033. 

57 



V. London 

Times, 

March 6, 

1832 



B. Sarrans, 
II, 301 



liberal appearances Louis Philippe gave himself and to teach 
that monarch the principles of Legitimacy, or else if he failed, 
in the former, to destroy the July Monarchy entirely. Later 
he wrote to Lutzow — ambassador in Rome — a letter which is 
almost the proof of this intention, and in which he decries 
the contradictory character of the July Monarchy and the 
weakness of its moral and material calibre, laid bare once 
again by the Ancona affair to which it had nearly succumbed. ^^ 
Metternich's plan succeeded. The Ancona fiasco proved 
France's worth — the real value of an over-ambitious pride 
and of a too eager desire for military glory. Perier too had 
followed the middle course without knowing it, and in France, 
at least for a time, there was contentment. The Premier 
had gained his point, the budget was passed — it was a veri- 
table "coup de tete." But this distraction of Perier's was 
to have few results and subsequent events have seemed to 
show that France gained nothing from it. This, it is very 
likely, had been the real purpose of Perier. Ancona, then, 
served as a mere distraction and it was a dear one for Louis 
Philippe. One base of his monarchy was swept from under 
him, while the liberals, realizing the jingoism of the entire 
affair, became more enraged than ever at the latest loss of 
credit for France in the eyes of the world. The Ancona 
policy had made Austria all the more powerful in Rome, while 
Metternich's damning assertions increased Gregory's mild 
apprehension of the French to the point of actual fear and 
led him to call in still another power against her. It proved 
a mere show of force for nothing. Louis Philippe the liberal 
king was one step nearer his conversion to a "Bourbon policy" 
through the blindness of his ministers to Metternich's tactics. 
And, "a Bourbon" policy was one of the predecessors of his 
fall. 

" "The Ancona affair is the logical expression of the golden mean, 
that doctrine which always couples a vast amount of the thought- 
lessness with a grain of reason, a want of consideration with an 
affirmation. This affair is the symptom of the malady which is ravaging 
the world; it proves, by the clearest evidence, what are the real 
tendencies of situations abounding in contradictions; lastly, it gages 
the moral and material calibre of the 'government of the glorious 
days' and proves what the authority of the powers really amounts to." 
Metternich, Mem. v. to Lutzow, April 3, 1832, Off. Desp. 1054. 

58 



There was also another sense in -which Perier was to gain 
and France to lose, and this was the effect of the Ancona situa- 
tion on the Liberal Roman Catholic Movement, as represented 
by La Mennais, Montalembert and Lacordaire who had reached 

Rome. The situation iust discussed has shown what Powers Afifaires de 
•' iRome, 1 5- 10, 

were the most influential at the Court of Rome, those very Boutard, 

States that had tried so hard to discredit France in the eyes ^^> ^^4 
of the Pope and to maintain the continuance of a reactionary 
poHcy in Italy, and to whose eyes the principles of the Holy 
Alliance seemed sacred. How did these influential Powers 
look upon La Mennais? He seemed to them the reincarna- 
tion of the Ancona policy in another sphere. Austria, of 
course, by its very position was opposed to I'Avenir and its 
views. What could Metternich, the very embodiment of two 
ancient principles, Legitimacy and the Temporal Power of the 
Papacy, have in common with La Mennais, the champion 
of a Republicanism hateful to the old regime and the ad- 
vocate of an Ultromontanism utterly incomprehensible to the 
men of the Ancient Regime ? The same question may be asked I'Avenir, 
of the king of Prussia, who sought to subordinate religion to ^'^ i^^i ' 
a state affair and in whose eyes DoelHnger and the Round 
Table found but little favour. As for the Tsar of Russia, 
his attitude to Louis Philippe is well known. He disliked 
the Frenchmen of the July Revolution, and it may well be 
imagined how much more he would hate La Mennais who 
not only professed liberal ideas but sought to put them to 
practical use as well; a Republican who must, then, agree 
with LaFayette's speech on Poland, an Ultramontane who 
could not favour the diminished authority of Rome in Poland 
due to its submission to Russian power. With this in mind 
it is not surprising to read that La Mennais and his two 
friends were preceded to Rome by diplomatic notes from 
these three powers advising the Pope to condemn once and 
for all those revolutionaries who sought to preach revolt in 
the name of religion. But, this charge was unjust, and how 
selfish their attitude ! For, after all, where can it be shown 
that La Mennais or his school ever preached revolt from the 
Papacy to the Italian Liberals? They had written in favour I'Avenir 
of changes in Belgium, Poland, Germany, and Ireland, but i Mars, 1831 

59 



it is difficult to see just where any direct attack on Italy or 
against the Pope was made. Had the Powers founded their 
charge upon any substantial facts, they might, with a certain 
amount of reason, have warned the Pope. But they did not 
trouble even to search for evidence, they merely made the 
charge and were listened to, if not by Gregory XVI himself, 
at least by Bernetti, his secretary of State. Once only had 
I'Avenir shown itself at all severe in the discussion of 
events in Italy. This was a propos of the amnesty granted 
in 183 1 by Gregory XVI to the rebellious liberals, when a 
criticism of this action appeared in the journal and concluded: 
"en un mot, toutes les regies de la justice criminelle sont 
oubliees dans cet acte, qui, grace a Dieu, emane du pro- 
secretaire d'fitat, ministre du prince temporel et non du chef 
des Chretiens. "^^ In interpreting this comment to the Pontiff 
in the light of a rebellious and overbold criticism the Powers 
must have forgotten that they had displayed their own dis- 
approval and doubt as to the efficacy of Papal politics when 
at Paris they tried to nominate a power that should enforce 
the Pope's will.^^ What La Mennais had hoped for in Italy 
was a liberal revolution which would end in its unification, 

Ibid. under the Pope himself. "Purer hands than yours must lay 
the foundation of liberty in a country," were the words 
addressed to the Italian Liberals.^* 

But it was not only with diplomatic notes from these powers 
that the Court of Rome was besieged. Charges came from 
France as well ; from the emigres in Italy and from a govern - 

jj ^q' ment in France that displayed unmistakable "resistance" sym- 
pathy and therefore was more amenable to the extreme 
conservatives some of whom were Carlists. It is to be remem- 
bered that Casimir Perief had been praised by I' Ami de la 
Religion et du roi. Cardinal de Rohan was the leader of the 
Carlist party at Rome. He was a strong Legitimist and there- 
fore, a member of the "petite Eglise." His first admiration for 
La Mennais soon died down when he found I'Avenir unwilling 
to support "this little prince" as he called Charles X. Still 

"V.; also I'Avenir Mars 1831. 
" Memorandum de C. Perier, etc. 
"V. Affaires de Rome, 16-17. 

60 * 



another enemy was Cardinal Lambruschini, an Austrian. Per- 
haps the most powerful yet least evident opponents of La 
Mennais, however, were the Jesuits. Their animosity dates 
from the publication of "Des Progres de la Revolution et de la 
guerre contre I'Eglise," and it had increased as La Mennais 
developed still further his thesis of the freedom of the indi- 
vidual will. All these were La Mennais' enemies, and with one 
voice they demanded of the Pope the condemnation of the 
innovators. 

To the unbiased observer the Pope's position at this time, 
and even his subsequent actions, are easily understood. And, 
he should not be judged too harshly; Gregory XVI was bound 
by the action of centuries. Rebellion in his own States, rebel- 
lion threatening in all Catholic countries, two foreign armies 
in two of his citadels; Austria, for one, he trusted but feared 
she would go to extremes, while of the sincerity of France, 
he felt uncertain. And behind all this there remained the sov- 
ereigns of the Catholic States, the only rulers in whom he 
might place his confidence, advising him to condemn this auda- 
cious liberal sprung himself from a country whose king was v. Apostolic 
of revolutionary origin and whose religious professions were Gregory 
none too orthodox in the eyes of the Roman Congregation. p-^^T-^"^^: 
All these things considered, it is hardly surprising that he acted 
as he did, and he should not be too heavily censured for his 
actions. Gregory XVI was not a great theologian nor a great 
savant ; his letters show this ; he was not a tyrant nor a proud 
pontiff, and above all he was singularly inexperienced. This 
inexperience and the knowledge of it, meeting with the more Boutard, 
subtle character of Bernetti, could not but give rise to a certain 
defiance and stubbornness which was more of a shield to a 
weak character than an evidence of great resolution and 
strength. Furthermore, it seems, that Metternich was supreme 
in Rome at this moment, and it is not at all unlikely that the 
Pope may have shared in the general opinion the Austrian had 
spread in Rome; that the "Monarchy of the Glorious Days" 
was weak — witness the Ancona affair — and might fall at any 
time. With all this in mind, it is not unreasonable to suppose 
that Gregory XVI had decided it would be better to rid Catho- 
lic France of all these liberals at once, in the hope that when the 

6i 



II, 272 



d'Hausson- 

ville, "La- 

cordaire," 

p. 68 



change took place and France returned again to the fold, she 
might have as few of these liberals as possible to deal with ; 
now to silence them once and for all. Moreover, if Gregory 
had approved La Mennais' doctrines, could he have sanctioned 
them at this time ? This seems doubtful, for to have sanction- 
ed one word of them would doubtless have plunged Europe 
into the worst civil war she had yet experienced. In practically 
every country there was discontentment, and the slightest sign 
of approval might easily have thrown open the gates of every 
Capital to revolution. It is true, the restive districts had been 
quieted but this had been done in many places in the name of 
religion and the Holy Alliance. Even the tacit recognition of 
such principles might easily have added the necessary spark to 
the inflammable condition of Europe and caused a terrific out- 
burst of revolutionary enthusiasm. The question arises, then, 
if the editors had not demanded an answer, would their doc- 
trines have been condemned? This again seems doubtful and 
may explain the hesitating policy the Roman Curia adopted in 
regard to the whole affair. Even La Mennais seemed to have 
realized this fact, but too late.^^ 

But, the editors of I'Avenir had demanded the voice of 
Rome, and after a wait of six months it was to come to them. 
In the meantime their patience was to be tried by petty ex- 
cuses, formalities and procrastinations. "Fear is the greatest 
enemy you have here in Rome," one prelate is said to have re- 
marked to La Mennais. And commenting on this remark. La 
Mennais added : "He was mistaken ; I believe it was political 
interests."^® 

From the very outset the two younger members of the "Pil- 
grimage" seemed to have realized the utter hopelessness of 
their cause, but La Mennais did not perceive the actual state of 
affairs until much later, not, in fact, until June when the Pope 
issued his bull to the bishops of Poland — a veritable premo;ii- 
tion of the fate awaiting I'Avenir. One thing, however, La 
Mennais did perceive and that was the actual decadence of the 

""Affaires de Rome," p. 7: "Furthermore, it is certain that if, less 
influenced by an overscrupulous delicacy they had scorned so many 
unworthy attacks and continued so courageously their work, no act 
of authority would have intervened to interrupt them." 

"v. Giraud, lettre, 10 Avril 1832. "Affaires de Rome," 38. 

62 



Church in the city of its founding. This fact made a deep 
impression on him, but, oddly enough, it also served to con- 
vince him that his views were right and would be accepted. ^^ 
If, on the other hand, they are neglected the Papacy will 
thereby have refused the last means of salvation offered it. 
The subsequent actions of the Papacy seemed to bear out 
these observations. The three pilgrims had an interview with 
the Pope, but with the express understanding that the real 
purpose of their visit to Rome should not be discussed. La 
Mennais was much encouraged by the reception given him by 
Gregory XVI, despite the restriction which must have irritated 
him. Furthermore, his hopes were raised from time to time 
by the statements of cetain prelates — particularly Cardinal Mi- 
cara, who is said to have expressed in no dubious terms his 
thorough approval of the Liberal Catholics' policy.^* But the 
continued silence of the Court puzzled the three liberals, and 
they finally decided to force an answer. Accordingly they set 
to work to compose a "Memoire" for the Pope. When this was 
completed (3 Fevrier 1832) it was given to Cardinal Pacca who 
iigreed to present it to Gregory XVI. The "Memoire" was a 
frank exposition of the doctrines and policy of I'Avenir from 

"J'espere que mon sejour a Rome ne se prolongera pas desormais 
longtemps, et Tun des plus beaux jours de ma vie sera celui-ci ou je 
sortirai de ce grand tombeau, ou Ton ne trouve que des vers et des 
ossements." Corresp. ed. Forgues, 10 Fevrier 1832. 

Later he writes : "Le Pope est un homme pieux, conduit par les 
hommes qui ne le sont guere, et qui se preoccupent uniquement des 
interets temporels, qu'ils n'entendent pas, lis fondent toutes leurs 
esperances sur les baionnettes des puissances ennemies de rdglise, et, en 
consequence cette eglise leur est sacrifice sans hesitations. Les gens de 
bien gemissent et s'indignent. lis pre-voient de grands chatimens, des 
catastrophes prochains, desquelles Dieu fera sortir le remede des maux 
extremes qu'ils deplorent et qui desormais ne peuvent etre gueris que 
par I'intervention immediate de Dieu. II n'y a plus de Papaute; il 
faut qu'elle renaisse ou I'eglise et le monde periraient. Voila I'etat 
des choses." v. Giraud Une Corresp. ed. 10 Avril 1832. 

"Boutard (IL 315) quotes a letter from La Mennais to M. de Coux 
in which L. repeats the remarks of the Cardinal: "Vous etes venus 
a Rome pour demander que Ton condamnat vos doctrines si elles 
renfermaient quelque chose de condamnable; vous avez fait cette de- 
mande de vive voix, et par ecrit; on ne les a pas condamnees, done 
elles ne sont pas condamnables. Recommencez I'Avenir; c'est ce que 
je ferai a votre place." 

6i 



the very beginning, and in it the writers tried to explain and 
refute the charge of being political revolutionaries — a charge 
brought by the Carlist interests at Rome. The first part was 
taken up with the description of the position of the neo-catho- 
lics in 1830 when they had two, and only two courses open to 
them, either to become a political faction under the govern- 
ment and gain power that way, or else to fight for it openly, 
the healthiest and safest way/^ Equally apt is their description 
of the July Monarchy's attitude to religion and the efforts 
made to stifle it by gradually rendering it more servile to the 
State.-" 

The rest of the "Memoire" is a defense of their doctrines, 
showing first that no canon or apostolic tradition exists against 
the separation of Church and State, that the Roman Catholic 
Faith is not incompatible with the liberty of religious denom- 
inations (Cultes), freedom of instruction, of the press or with 
any form of constitutional government. The "Memoire" pre- 
sents in a concise and convincing form the proof of the good 
done by VAvenir and the Agence in matters of faith, conver- 
sion and religious indifference. In conclusion, the authors 
speak of their enemies in the following terms ; (this paragraph 
is interesting as a portrait of the conditions existing in France 
at the end of the first Liberal Catholic Movement) : 

"To explain this curious situation it is necessary to go back 
to the causes of the opposition encountered by the editors of 

^*"II n'y avait evidement que deux parties a prendre; ou s'en tenir 

au systeme de la Restauration ou ralliance indissoluble du trone et de 

I'autel, a la solidarite de I'un et de I'autre, ou renoncer a ce systeme 

et separer, autant qu'l etait possible deux causes dont I'union avait ete 

si malheureuse. . . . Suivre ce premier systeme de conduit etait done 

abandonner I'eglise au hasard dans un moment decisif pour elle; et, en 

supportant des esperances douteuses realisees meme dans un court 

delai, c'etait I'attendre son salut cela meme, qui avait fait sa perte 

pendant seize ans." Mem. Presentee Para. II. 

Memoire =« "La Revolution de 1830 avait ete faite autant contre I'eglise que 

presentee, , , ^ -i '. •, • .,,,.,,, ^ 

IV and V ^°""^ ^^ couronne, et il etait impossible qu il en fut autrement a cause 

de leur intime alliance. Le gouvernement sorti de cette revolution, 

devait, done etre hostile a I'eglise ; mais il n'avait le choix comme nous 

Th;^ AAT J I'avons dit, qu'entre une persecution ouverte et un asservissement 

loia. VI and .j. , t, , > 

VII progressif et complet. II choisit la derniere mode comme moms 

hasardeuse; et parce qu'il voulait en toutes choses conserver au moins 

les apparences de I'ordre anterieur." Mem. Pres. Para. III. 

64 



I'Avenir. Of these, two are of prime importance ; one political, 
the other theological. When the partisans of the dethroned 
Bourbons saw a newspaper appearing that defended religion 
without defending the old dynasty, that even tried frankly to 
combat the faults of the Restoration, they persuaded themselves 
that its editors might become serious obstacles to their designs. 
They feared that their own cause might lose the support of the 
clergy, and as this support seemed essential to them they set to 
work to ruin I'Avenir with all the energy and all the eagerness 
that parties employ in order to remove an obstacle to their own , 
progress. . . . On the other side, although dogmatic Gallican- 
ism had been destroyed in France in the great majority of 
cases yet there still existed traces of it ; and, in addition, practi- 
cal Gallicanism, that is the long usage of a social order founded 
on the Gallican theory, made it that even those who had logic- 
ally sacrificed the principle still Hved under the empire of things 
that it had created. Then too, the separation of Church and 
State attacked this practical Gallicanism. It was, in brief, the 
setting into action of Roman doctrines in a society where con- 
trary doctrines had only just recently perished after a contro- 
versy lasting ten years." 

This, in substance, was the nature of the exposition of their 
doctrines presented by VAveni/s editors to the Pope. It now Mem. para., 
remained for it to be put through an apparent examination and ^-^^^ 
then there was a long delay. On the 9th of June, however, 
Gregory XVI issued his encyclical to the Bishops of Poland 
advising submission to the temporal power of the Tsar. This, 
as has been said, came about as an exchange for the Tsar's 
promise of assistance against his enemies to Gregory. One 
phrase of this letter was interpreted as a warming to La 
Mennais and his followers : 

"In this cause you must use all diligence to be sure to pre- 
vent evil-minded men and innovators from continuing to spread 
their false doctrines and erroneous theories, from endangering 
the common welfare as they have done heretofore by taking 
advantage of the credulity of simple-minded folk, who, not 
having been cautioned, are unconsciously becoming blind in- 
struments to trouble the peace of this realm and to upset the 
established order of Society." 

6S 



The above paragraph left little doubt in the minds of La 
Mennais' harshest critics as well as his greatest friends, where 
the Papacy stood in regard to I'Avenir and its influence. It 
even seems to have warned La Mennais that he need expect 
little or no encouragement from Rome. And so it was that 
accompanied by Montalembert, for Lacordaire before this time 
had left them, La Mennais went to Munich where he was cor- 
dially received by the Round Table. Hardly, however, had he 
left Rome when the Protest of Toulouse arrived. It was a 
petition signed by the prelates of the "Midi," urging an imme- 
diate condemnation. So Gregory XVI, influenced by the 
bishops of the "Midi," the Carlists in France and Rome, the 
three conservative sovereigns of Europe, and alarmed, per- 
haps, by the assertion La Mennais is said to have made that, 
not having received any order to the contrary he would return 
and resume his work in France, was forced to act. On the 15th 
of August, 1832, the famous Encyclical "Mirari Vos" appeared 
and sounded the death-knell of the first Liberal Catholic Move- 
ment in France. In this document the Pope condemned every 
doctrine of I'Avenir except that of the absolute independence 
of the Church from civil authority. Almost at the outset the 
Encyclical indignantly denies that the Church has any need 
to be restored (regeneree). Thus at the very beginning the 
proof of La Mennais' fatal move at the first trial is established, 
and the great extent of influence exerted by Ami de la Religion 
et du roi and its adherents, the Carlists, affirmed. ^^ In the 

''^ "Cum autem ut Tridentinorum Patrum verbis utamur, constet 
Ecclesiam eruditam fuisse a Christo Jesu, ejusque Apostolis, atque a 
Spiritu Sancto illi omnem veritatem in dies suggerente edoceri, ab- 
surdum plane est, ac maxime in earn injuriosum, restaurationem ac 
regenerationem quandam obtrudi quasi necessariam, ut ejus incolu- 
mitati, et incremento, consulatur, perinde ac si censeri ipsa possit vel 
defectui, vel obscurationi, vel aliis hujuscemodi incommodis obnoxia; 
quo quidem molimine eo spectant novatores, ut recentis humanae insti- 
tutionis jaciantur fundamenta, illud que ipsum eveniat quod detestatur 
Cyprianus, ut quae divina res humana fiat ecclesia : (since it has been 
proved, to quote the fathers of Trent, that the Church is instructed 
by Jesus Christ and his Apostles and that she was taught by the Holy 
Spirit who suggested to her every truth, it is absurd as well as ex- 
tremely offensive to her that anyone should advocate as essential to 
her duration and increase any restoration or reform; as if she could 
be delivered or exposed to weakness, blindness, or any other failings 

es 



next paragraph Gregory refutes La Mennais' idea of the con- 
dition of indifference in matters reHgious, its cause, and also 
the thesis of Hberty of conscience.-- This, in turn, is followed 
by the condemnation of many of those political concessions 
which La Mennais through I'Avenir had advocated, among 
them, the liberty of the press.-' The next paragraph is inter- 
esting, for it betrays the influences at work in the Papal Court 
as well as the real motives at their base. It was the paragraph 
demanded by the rulers of Austria, Prussia and Russia, and 
the government of France, a command to the people to obey 
the civil authority conferred on their superiors by Divine 
Law — and to cease to consider the dangerous works on liberty 
at that time so much in evidence.-* But, the people once in sub- 

of such a kind." Mirari vos — ^Gregorius XVI., XVill. Kalendis Sep- 
tembris die solemni assumptionis, B. V. Mariae, anno Dominicae in- 
carnationis MDCCCXXXII, Pontificatus nostri anno II. 

" "Atque ex 'hoc putidissimo indifferentismi fonte absurda ilia fluit 
ac erronea sententia, seu potius deliremantum, asserandam esse ac 
vindicandam cuilibet libertatem conscientiae." ("And from this equally- 
shameful source springs that ridiculous and wrong idea, or rather 
madness, that freedom 'of conscience should be defended and insisted 
upon by any and all.") Mirari vos — ^Gregoribus XVI., etc. 

^ "Cum autem circumlatis in vulgus scriptis doctrinas quasdam 
promulgari acceperimus, quibus debita erga principes fides atque 
submissio labefactatur, f acesque perduellionis ubique incenduntur ; caven- 
dum maxime erit, ne populi inde decepti a recti semita adducantur. 
Animadvertant omnes, non esse, juxta apostoli monitum, potestatem 
nisi a Deo ; quae autem sunt a Deo ordinatae sunt. Itaque qui resistit 
protestati Dei ordinationi resistit et qui resistunt ipsi sibi damnationem 
acquirunt. Quo circa et divina et humana jura in eos clamant, qui tur- 
pissimi perduellionis seditionumque machinationibus a fide in principes 
desisciere ipsosque ab imperio deturbare connituntur." ("Since it has 
come to our knowledge that certain works have been distributed among 
the people advocating the very doctrines subversive to the fidelity and 
submission due to princes, and light everywhere torches of revolt, it is 
most necessary that you see to it that the people do not surmount the 
bounds of their duties. They should remember that, according to the 
words of the apostle, 'There is no power which is not of God.' There- 
fore, 'he who resists that power, resists God and those who resist 
(jod do so to their own condemnation. Therefore both divine and 
human law is against those who attempt to overstep by civil plots of 
sedition and revolt, the duty of fidelity to their princes, and who try- 
to dethrone them.") Mirari vos — Gregorus XVI., etc. 

^ "Neque laetoria et religioni et principatui ominari possemus, ex eorum 

67 



Mirari 



mission to their rulers, must not think of separating the Church 
from the Temporal Power to whom they are subjected.-^ 

Having completed his condemnation of the doctrines of La 
Mennais, the Encyclical then considers the work of La Men- 
nais and his school I'Avenir, to be sure, but more especially the 
Agence and all similar organizations in other countries as well. 
They are condemned as hotbeds of error and of revolution. ^'^ 
In conclusion, the Pope refers to La Mennais and his school in 
the following paragraph : 

"Embracing in your paternal affection all those who are 
occupied in ecclesiastical sciences and religious questions; be- 
Gregorius," seech them constantly not to rely overmuch on their own intel- 
XVI, etc, ligence, which would take them far from the way of truth and 
would lead them into the way of impiety. May they remember 
that God is the way of all knowledge and the chastiser of the 
wise, and that we cannot know God without God who teaches 
us by His word to know God. It is for the proud and fooHsh 

votis, qui Ecclesiam a regno separari, mutuamque imperii cum sacer- 
dotio concordiam abrumpti dispiciunt. Constat quippe pertimesci ab 
impudentissimae libertatis amatoribus concordiam illam, quae semper 
rei et sacrae et civili fausta exstitit ac salutaris." ("We could not for- 
bode anything more happily for religion and for the nations, in 
following the wishes of those who deny a separation of Church and 
State, than the mutual concord of empire and priesthood. For it is 
certain that this accord, so favourable both to religion and to civil 
authority in other times is the thing most feared by these relentless 
partisans of a limitless liberty."). Mirari vos — Gregorus XVI, etc. 
^ "Et ad caeteras acerbissimas causas quibus solliciti sumus, et in 
communi discrimine dolore quodam angimur praecipuo, accessere con- 
sociationes quaedam, statique coetus, quibus, quasi agmine facto cum 
cuius-cumque etiam falsae religionis ac cultus sectatoribus, simulata 
Quidem in religionem pietate, vere tamen novitatis, seditionemque ubique 
promovendarum cupidine, libertas omnis generis praedicatur, per- 
turbationes in sacram et civilem rem excitantur, sanctior qualibet auctori- 
tas discerpitur." ("And in addition to other reasons with which we 
are troubled and also afflicted with grief in an unusual degree, there 
have arisen certain associations and fixed assemblies, in which a martial 
spirit and liberty of every sort is proclaimed; along with the follow- 
ers of every cult and every false religion, under a pretense of respect 
for religion, to be sure, but really because of a desire for a change and 
for promoting revolutions everywhere they excite grievances against 
the good of the Church and the State, they destroy the most respec- 
table authority.") Mirari vos, etc. 

68 



to weigh in a mortal made balance the mysteries of the Faith 
which passes all understanding, and to rely on our own reason, 
which is weak and helpless because of the state of human 
nature." 

Such, in paraphrase, was the document that put an end to the 
first Liberal Catholic Movement in France and what a contrast 
it is to the "Acte d'Union" promulgated by that party! The 
Encyclical Mirari Vos might be called the final protest of The 
Middle Ages, condemning all those principles so dear to the 
men of to-day and all of which found birth in the Liberal 
Romanticism of the nineteenth century. It is true, similar 
doctrines had come to light before, but at a time when they . 

appeared in a form too exaggerated and too impracticable. The Beuve, 
Liberal Romanticism of the early Nineteenth Century, then, ^^^- ^^^ 
was a rebirth of these very same doctrines in a wiser and more Mondes, 
reasonable form; and, curiously enough, La Mennais, became ^^^- 5, 1832 
the precursor of Modern Realism, political, literary and relig- 
ious ; indeed, as one of his greatest contemporaries has said he 
was not of his age, he was a generation and more in advance. 

La Mennais and Montalembert joined by Lacordaire at Mu- 
nich, received the news of their condemnation in that city 
which had thrown wide its gates to receive them. And, it did 
not desert them in their hour of need. Accompanying the bull 
was a letter from Cardinal Pacca that was intended to lighten 
the weight of the blow. It recommended submission and at- 
tempted to show them, in a kindly fashion, where they had 
gone too far.^® But the three did not need this advice, they had 
sworn submission and they kept the promise. On their return 
to France, I'Avenir was abandoned and the "Agence" with all 
its brilliant and noble aims was dissolved. The editors seemed 
to be resigned to their fate.-^ 

^ "EUe (so saintete) a ete beaucoup afflige de voir que les redacteurs 
aient pris sur eux de discuter en presence du public et de decider les 
questions les plus delicates, qui appartiennent au gouvernement de 
I'eglise et de son chef supreme, A'oh a resulte necessairement la per- 
turbation dans les esprits et surtout parmi le clerge lequel est tou- 
jours nuisible aux fideles." Pacca a La Mennais, Rome, 16 Aout 
1832. "Affairs de Rome, Pieces justificatives. 

" "Nous sommes de pauvres oiseaux enfermes dans le recipient de 
la machine pneumatique. Que faire? Prendre patience, puisque c'est 
Dieu qui nous a mis la et chercher dans I'etude et pour ainsi dire, dans 



Aflfaires 

de Rome, 

p. 157 



V. epist 

Encyc. 

Gregorius, 

XVI 

VII, Kal. 

Julias An 

M.D. 

CCCXXXIV 



Ami de la 

Religion 

et du roi, 

6 Sept., 

1832 



V. Journal 

des Dcbats 

I Sept., 

1832 

Constitn- 

tionnel, 

13 Sept., 

1832 



P. Albert, 
II. 141 



Unfortunately, the story of their disgrace does not end here ; 
it would have been far better for both parties had this been the 
case. But, there were to be separations and the severings of 
friendships.-^ And even then their enemies were not satisfied 
with a silence which, so La Mennais says, was too much like 
that respectful silence of the Jansenists, and they demanded 
further submission. Their requests became unreasonable and 
in time this useless persecution became intolerable to La Men- 
nais. He refused to make a second act of contrition and 
another Encyclical followed, this time of definite condemna- 
tion. Rome could not forgive La Mennais the "Paroles d'un 
croyant." 

At this date, July 7, 1834, we part with La Mennais. He 
lived longer, and did much good, even serving his country in the 
capacity of a deputy, but this does not concern us, for from 
now on he is removed from the course of events and the rela- 
tions between Church and State. It remains to follow through 
its first stage the great movement to which he gave the first 
impulse, an impulse which by no means spent its strength. 

How had France, his country, received the condemnation of 
the three Liberals at Rome? One party, of course, had rejoiced 
and had closed the discussion of the affair in columns of its 
journal with the triumphant words "Roma locuta est." Others, 
happily, had foreseen the evil of such an action and the great 
spiritual havoc it might create. Another, still more violent, 
demanded armed intervention. This, of course was ridiculous, 
but it served to show that La Mennais' work had not been in 
vain, and that those, even some of those who did not approve 
it, realized its importance and foresaw what we shall see and 
what one literateur of his country remarked at La Mennais' 
death : 

"On croit La Mennais fini ; jamais il n'a ete plus vivant." 

ratmosphere de la science, I'air qui nous manque." La Mennais a 
Montalembert Logue, i Oct. 1832. 

*'For the account of Lacordaire's separation, v. La Mennais a Monta- 
lembert, ed. Fogues, 12 Dec. 1832. 



70 



CHAPTER IV 

France 1832 — 1839 
The Neo-Catholic Revival 

The Premier who had inaugurated the Ancona poHcy did not 
see its completion. On April 16, 1832, the very day of the 
arrangement made between Pope, Emperor and King, Casimir 
Perier died. For nearly half a year previous to this time, Paris 
had been menaced with the cholera brought into Central Europe 
via Poland whither it had been carried by the Russian troops 
returning from Armenia. This disease claimed Casimir Perier. 
France was thrown into utter consternation at the news of his 
death; men asked themselves whether it portended good or 
evil, and even the King is said to have remarked : "Casimir 
Perier is dead, is this an advantage or a misfortune? Time 
will show." And time has shown that it was an advantage for 
Louis PhiHppe. Such a violent policy as Perier had inaugu- 
rated had accomplished much, but it could not have been tolera- 
ted longer ; his death paved the way for men of a more peaceful 
nature but equally talented, and also more subtle, perhaps. By 
November, 1832, the political horizon seemed clearer; the L- Blanc, 
Monarchy had silenced the Republicans and Legitimists tem- 
porarily at least, and the Bonapartists as well. The Republican 
revolt of June 5, occasioned by the funeral of General La- 
marque, had threatened seriously the safety of the Monarchy, 
but the following day the government had gained a signal vic- 
tory over them; the duchesse de Berri episode was decisively 
closed in November, and several months before, July 22, the due 
de Reichstadt had died. For two years Louis Philippe was to 
remain unmenaced and secure on his throne. 

After Perier's death there had ensued an interim when the 
ministry was without a formal head, but about the first of June 
Marshal Soult took charge, and resumed, after two years re- 

71 



Editorial, 

London 

Times, 

Sept. 15, 

1832 



L. Blanc, 

n, 83 



spite, a thorough policy of "juste miHeu." It must not be sup- 
posed, however, that the opposition, the Progressives, had re- 
mained silent all these months. Finding themselves unable to 
protest with any success in the chambers, they resorted to the 
press and the attacks against the government became more 
frequent and less moderate. There were many prosecutions 
in which the State did not fare well.^ Furthermore, if these 
prosecutions displayed to the world the instability of Louis 
Phihppe's throne, they also betrayed its utter hypocrisy. The 
liberal world began to ask itself if, after all, Louis Philippe 
and the men of 1830 were really sincere in their protestations 
of Liberalism. 

"Let the men under whose direction the government has been 
worked since 1830 ask themselves whether the French people 
have been allowed to reap all the benefits to which the victory 
obtained at the price of their own blood had entitled them; 
whether they had not availed themselves of the power which 
the people unsuspiciously confided into their hands to turn the 
fruits of the popular triumph to the profit of their own selfish 
interests and narrow-minded views ; and if they could convince 
us that they conscientiously believe this not to have been the 
case, we may deplore their blindness, but not think the less of 
their unfitness to be at the head of public affairs." 

This opinion may be said to have been held in France as 
well, and so in a desperate attempt to please, Louis Philippe 
formed a new Ministry. The presidency was first offered to 
Dupin. but he refused, Guizot was too unpopular with the 

^ "The acquittal of the National, a Paris paper, for a Hbel on Louis 
Philippe, or rather for a seditious excitement to overturn his throne 
shows the utter madness of the State prosecutions, in which the French 
government has lately indulged. There can be no question that 
several Paris journals contain every morning provocations to rebel- 
lion. They do not disguise their hatred of the monarch or the mon- 
archy nor their desire to see the establishment of a republican form of 
government. In their abuse of "the Bourbons" they adroitly veil their 
attacks and in praising the L^nited States they recommend it to 
France. The Tribune has now arrived at its sixty-second process and 
glories in each summons. . . . When juries refuse to convict the 
government should take the hint and cease to trouble the tribunals 
with their complaints."' Dispatch from Paris, London Times, Sept. 
4, 1832. 



72 



Republicans, and it fell to the due de Broglie to become the head 
of a new Cabinet, de Broglie was a high-minded admirable 
statesman but a "Doctrinaire'' ; still, Louis Philippe may have 
felt that perhaps under him the men who wielded the real power 
of the majority might be allowed to effect a middle course 
policy, with the careful hand of the duke ever ready to re- 
strain them. Hence it was that Guizot and Thiers found places 
in the Ministry while Dupin was left in the Chamber of 
Deputies. - 

It was a strong cabinet — "the Ministry of All Talents" — 
but at the outset it was confronted with a difficult task ; with- 
in France to consolidate the throne by the arrest of the duch- 
esse de Berri, and for foreign policy to secure the final consent v. Hille- 
of William of the Netherlands still hesitating, to the Treaty brand, 
of the Twenty-four Articles. It will be remembered that one of 
these ends was soon accomplished while the other they at- 
tempted to bring about by following up the policy of the 
Antwerp Expedition. But the king remained discontented; 
he did not like his Premier, who was of intractible honesty 
and who seemed to him too much of an idealist. Moreover, 
this feeling was not confined to the Court alone ; there were 
many other eyes who saw the danger as well. The "Doctrin- 
aires" had returned, those very men who almost until the fall of 
the old dynasty had failed to see its weakness, and who at the 
beginning of the new regime had been unable to establish it as 
firmly as they had promised.^ In past times they had seemed 
blind to actual conditions and again in 1833 their statements did 

^Broglie, Foreign Afifairs; Thiers, Interior; Guizot, Public Instruc- 
tion ; Mennais, Finance ; Soult, War ; Barthe, Justice. 

* "The government of France is at present in the hands of the doc- 
trinaires — men, who without desiring it, have contributed a good deal 
to the downfall of the Bourbons. Their political science as formerly 
developed in the Globe and Journal des Debats gives us an idea of 
the tendency of their views. ... In the Journal des Debats for the 
nth of August of the same year (1829) we find the following pas- 
sage : 'Irritation is daily appeased, the recollections of faction are on 
the wane, and extinguish themselves in a general attachment to the 
Charter.' Thus spoke the coryphaei of the 'doctrine' and within a year 
the dynasty was expelled, the Charter, that 'object of general attachment,' 
was torn to pieces by an imbecile monarch and the sublime populace 
of July forced its way in arms into the palace of the king." Dispatch 
from Paris, London Times, Jan. 5, 1833. 

73 



L. Blanc, 
II, 198 



London 

Times, 

Apr. 3, 

1833 



not seem conformable to the general opinion of the country. 
"The country wants no further troubles or disturbances, it 
thirsts for legal order ; political passions become extinct daily." 
In only one sense of the word is this statement true ; the coun- 
try indeed did not seem to want any further disturbances or 
troubles, and for a year there ensued an apathy — curious and 
yet none the less natural in such uncertain times.* Three laws 
were passed by the Ministry and the nature of these laws cannot 
but tend to confirm the observations made by the foreign press 
on the system of the doctrinaires. The first law concerned 
the reorganization and reestabUshment of the "Conseils 
d'arrondissement." A proposition had been made by Odilon 
Barrot and his confreres that the government form a new 
law allowing more opportunity to the electors living in the 
country districts, to assert their wishes. This proposal failed, 
and the older order, amounting to nothing more than an elec- 
toral monopoly on the part of the government, was reestab- 
lished. Guizot then proposed a more liberal law on primary 
instruction ; this was passed but its effect was rendered null 
by the passing of other contrary legislation. The Ministry 
in its turn introduced and passed, on the ground of public 
utility, a law on the expropriation of public property. In 
external affairs the first year of the new ministry was not 
much more successful; France had cried aloud together 
with most of the Western Europe that the integrity of the 

* Victor Hugo in the Preface to "Le Rois s'amuse," 1833, notes this 
condition ; his explanation is pertinent : "The moment of political 
transition in which we are placed is extraordinary. It is one of 
those instances of general weariness in which any act of despotism is 
possible in a society, even the most deeply imbued with notions of 
emancipation and liberty. France proceeded rapidly in 1830. She 
did three good day's work. She erected three depots in the field of 
civilization and advancement. Now, many are wearied, many out of 
breath, many call a halt. It is wished to hold back those generous 
spirits who are never tired and desire to keep always in advance, and 
wait for the laggards who are in the rear and give them time to come 
up. Hence an extraordinary fear of everything that thinks. This is an 
odd situation of things, easily understood, but difficult to describe. It 
consists of all existing that tremble at all ideal things; the league of 
interests pressed upon and bruised by theories; commerce which takes 
fright at all systems; merchants who want customers; streets that 
put counting houses in fear; the armed shop that defends itself." 



74 



Ottoman Empire must be maintained and yet she had taken 
part in annihilation of the Turkish fleet at Novarino, 
and was concerned in the Treaty of Adrianople. "Monstrous 
Contradiction,'' cried the Republicans. It is true, the ministry 
was one step nearer the English Alliance, but as yet it was 
only in prospect, and men were beginning to have so little 
faith in the "Doctrine" that they doubted if such a happy 
situation would ever become a reality. In 1833, then, some 
were again, because of present discontents, dreaming of a 
Republic, but they bided their time, for they were still too 
few in number to succeed. 

The year 1834, however, opened more auspiciously for 
Louis PhiHppe. The English entente was in immediate pros- 
pect — it was the year of the Triple and Quadruple Alliances. 
These two alliances were of great service to the "Ministry 
of all Talents"; they brought to reality the English Entente, 
an object in prospect for over four years, the first step 
to . which had been the Anglo-French accord in regard to 
Belgium, and the marriage of Louis Philippe's daughter to 
Leopold 1, England's candidate. The occasion of the alliances 
was the civil wars in Spain and Portugal. Isabelle II of Spain, 
on the death of her father in 1833, found herself confronted 
with a rival to the throne in the person of Don Carlos, while 
in 1834, Donna Maria's right to the throne of Portugal was 
challenged by Don Miguel, her uncle. England took the part 
of these two unfortunate queens, one of whom was only 
a child, and with them she formed a pact of protection known 
as the Triple Alliance. On April 22, 1834 France joined the 
three and this treaty marks the foundation of the Quadruple 
Alliance. Thus was cemented the friendly entente with Eng- d'Haus- 
land, and yet, like so many of the poHtical sections of the jjist. II ' 2 
July Monarchy, it was founded on a patent inconsistency. It 
was true that England, no longer a member of the "Holy 
Alliance" needed an ally and France was in equal need, but 
that was their sole mutual ground for sympathy, as future 
events will show. They had failed to take into account their 
radically different policies in the East, and also England, 
if she took the entente seriously, though of this there is some 
ground for doubt, must have forgotten that Louis Philippe 



Stern, 
IV, I 



Bourgeois, 
III, IV 



75 



was part Bourbon, and once he held the reins of the gov- 
ernment himself, might revert to old Bourbon policies — 
witness Spain and the question of the Spanish marriages. 
Except for a slight break in 1840, under Thiers' ministry, the 
English alliance, nevertheless, was to hold good and be further 
strengthened by visits exchanged between the sovereigns 
(1843-1845) until the fatal year 1846. 

This, then, was the first advantage of the Quadruple Alli- 
ance — France had an ally, even if she was excluded by 
Metternich from the general European Concert. The second 
advantage which the Ministry had foreseen, however, was to 
make less of an impression on the minds of the French. Upon 
the outbreak of civil war in their respective realms, the two 
queens had found themselves almost without support at home. 
Both turned, therefore, to the liberal party, and aided by the 
liberal parties in their respective realms. Donna Maria and 
Isabella were victorious, with this important result: the for- 
mation of quasi-constitutional governments. So another 
French Ministry was enabled to boast of a liberal policy. 
But this advantage was comparatively nil in France. It had, 
however, one serious result; it opened the eyes of Metternich 
to a new situation, a formidable coalition for constitutional 
rights seemed imminent,^ and he determined to break this 
union as soon as possible. In still another quarter there was 
discontent, and of a far more serious nature; this policy had 
not impressed the Republicans. In April 1834 another revolt 
broke out among the factory workers in Lyons, principally 
hatmakers and silk weavers. The Industrial Revolution as 
before, was the cause; but while the riot originated in the 
form of a strike, it soon became more menacing. The Re- 
Weill, p. publicans seized upon it, and attempted to use it as a means 
to gain their own ends. The revolt spread to St. Etienne, 
Clermont, Grenoble and finally to Poitiers and Luneville. 
Soon Paris, too, was the scene of a riot where the Republicans 

' "I reckon this to be a great stroke. In the first place it will settle 
Portugal, and go some way to settle Spain also. But what is of more 
permanent and extensive importance, it establishes a quadruple alliance 
among the Constitutional States of the West, which will serve as a 
power counterpoise to the Holy Alliance of the East." Letter of 
Palmerston, quoted in Cruice VI, 65. 

76 



of the capital with "sections" named after the great heroes of 
the Revolution, Robespierre, Marat, etc., took to street fighting 
under the direction of Cavaignac, Lagrange, Grinaud and 
Louis Blanc. Louis Philippe's two years of internal peace 
had ended. 

The year 1835 saw several changes in the cast of characters 
to play a part in the history of political progress under Louis 
Philippe. La Fayette had died in May of the preceding year 
and de Broglie during that year resigned from the Ministry. 
But the principal interest of the new year was the trial of 
the Republican leaders who had figured in the April Days of 
1834. Here again, the government displayed almost incredible 
weakness ; there were no death sentences ; deportation was to 
be the penalty, and Cavaignac was allowed to escape from 
Paris. The greatest event of the year, however, was not 
the trial. of the republican conspirators but the attempt made 
on the life of Louis Philippe July 28th. Its results were 
far reaching. On that date Louis PhiHppe reviewed the 
troops on the Boulevard du Temple. During the review an 
infernal machine exploded near the king; forty people were 
killed, but Louis PhiHppe escaped uninjured. This time the 
government was not so lenient in its actions. The perpetrators 
of the crime, Morey, Fieschi and one Pepin, were condemned 
to death and guillotined. But the trial had been the scene 
of constant riots and the government, alarmed, decided at 
last on repressive measures. Accordingly the September laws Hillebrand, 
were promulgated altering the assize court system by allow- ^' ^ ^ ^^^ 
ing the Minister of Justice to create as many of these special 
courts as might be necessary in the event of attacks threaten- 
ing the security of the State. In addition, jury decisions were 
made possible by a mere majority vote (instead of two-thirds 
vote as heretofore) and the censorship of the press was to be 
vigorously enforced. Such were the direct results of the 
Morey-Fieschi attempt. The indirect results were still greater ; 
more stringent laws were passed forbidding associations, and 
the paper hawkers were allowed to sell only specified journals. 
There was, moreover, another result of this latest attempt on 
the life of the King, and this is found in the changed attitude 
of the monarch himself. Six attempts in all were made on 



the life of Louis Philippe during his reign and these experi- 
ences taught him far more successfully than the cunning of 
Metternich, the advantages of principles of Legitimacy and 
a "Bourbon poHcy." The September Laws mark the first 
step in this direction. 

The effect of this Ordinance on the "Ministry of All Talents" 
was fatal; for, while the laws appeared to accomplish the 
desired end, their authors found themselves unable to do 
more. Accordingly in February, 1836 the Ministry was dis- 
solved and from this date there ensued a period of four 
years' struggle which may well be called the Parliamentary 
crisis of the July Monarchy. It was during this interval that 
Dangin, ^he monarchical principle as understood by the founders of 
n, 439 the July Monarchy began to lose its hold. The reason is 
obvious. By the fall of the Broglie cabinet all those elements, 
that had been united under the Ministry of Casimir Perier 
"Thiers" ' ^"^ that had given it and the succeeding Cabinet much power 
were dispersed, de Broglie, Thiers, Guizot, Mole, Soult, the 
great parHamentarians of the day, no longer acted in unison 
V. de Croza- g^^^ j^^ harmony. They were now to act independently ; 
"Guizot" politics became a matter of personal interest and personal 
theories. The dissolution of the Ministry of the Doctrine 
brought more anarchy into the field of political ideals. It 
^' lip^^^^Jl^' seemed, too, as if the most prominent of these leaders had 
experienced a sudden political transformation. Thiers, no 
longer of the "doctrinaires," became more affiliated with the 
Hillebrand, Left Center, while Guizot, abjuring his former policies, be- 
' "408 ^ ^° came a leader in the opposition of the Right.*' The period 

*A propos of this change on the part of Guizot Heine (Lutece) 
remarked a little later : "With Guizot it is different. For him the 
victory of the bourgeois is a fait accompli. He evinces all the quali- 
ties of a true doctrinaire, who never fails to find a doctrine by which he 
proves all he does. He knows too much and is by far too intelligent to 
be a sceptic at bottom, but his scepticism is easily conciliated with 
the devotion to his system. Just now he is a faithful servant of the 
Bourgeoisie and he will defend his idea to the last inexorably and 
with the harshness of a Duke of Alva. He does not hesitate, he 
knows what he wants at the present hour. Why even were he to fall 
his very fall would not shake him; he would shrug his shoulders for 
after all he is personally indifferent to the thing he is fighting for. Nay 
even if by strange hazard victory should tumble into the hands of 



of rivalry was an actuality ; it was no longer a thing foretold 
or foreseen. The obtaining of a Parliamentary majority — 
now a very fickle and elusive object, became a mere matter 
of agility. One foreign observer, then a resident of Paris, 
gives a very striking yet by no means inexact description 
of the rivalry between the two leaders : 

"He (Guizot) does not know how to come down 
from the top mast of power. Whilst Thiers, who 
is as agile as a monkey in getting to the top of this greasy 
''mat de cocagne" is still more ready to slip down from it 
again, and jump among the admiring crowd, full of smiles, 
ease, elasticity ; Guizot neither climbs up nor comes down the 
same way. He hoists himself up so heavily and with such 
outrageous efforts of strength, that one invariably thinks of h. Heine, 
a bear scaling a wall to get a honey pot ; but when he is at ^^' ^ 
the top, he digs his strong paws vigorously in, and then it 
is very hard to get him down. Perhaps he has not the easy 
knack of descending possessed by his smart rival, and, once 
'in,' it may require a positive commotion to get him 'out' of 
his high place." 

On the 22nd of February, 1836, Thiers formed a new 
ministry. It was not to last long, however, and the sixth of 
September, Thiers resigned owing to a reversal of poHcy by 
Louis Philippe who, at the last minute, denied the advisability 
of Thiers' policy to send troops to Spain for the purpose of 
upholding the new Constitution granted by Isabella II. 

The first ministry of Thiers had also witnessed the early v. Moniteur, 
discovery of another attempt to be made on the life of Louis "^'^-^^^^ '' 
Philippe, again this time planned by the Republicans now 
known under two names "The Society of the Family" and 
the "Society of the People's Rights." Thus the king was 
a second time brought face to face with the grave dangers 
menacing the dynasty and a new policy, long in contempla- 
tion but never before tried, was inaugurated under the Mole 
Ministry (1836- 1839). This new plan was known as the 

the Republicans or Communists I would strongly advise these ex- 
cellent weak-witted individuals to get hold of Guizot for their minis- 
ter, and I would give just the same advice to 'Henricinquists' (Carlists) 
in case they should be restored one day to power." Lutece, Franzosische 
Ziistande II, L. 

79 



"policy of personal government."^ The new cabinet proved 
to be the training school in which Guizot prepared himself 
for his long term of office after the fall of Thiers in 1840.^ 
Mole desired to put an end to the policy of repression as 
instituted by the September Laws; he had visions of social 
reform, and of bringing about a reconciliation between parties. 
nLis'^PreTace' ^^ ^^ interesting to note that he was supported in this by La 
Troisiemes' Mennais. The entrance of Guizot into the Ministry, how- 
Milanges ever, prevented the pursuit of this plan, perhaps too ideal for 
such troublesome times, and the former "Doctrinaires" headed 
by the new minister, soon formed a separate faction in the 
cabinet against their chief. The first event of importance 
was the Strassburg plot of October 30th, originated by the 
Bonapartists and headed by Louis Napoleon. The "Culte 
Napoleon" had been gaining the people for some time. For 
fear of appearing cowardly had they done otherwise, the gov- 
ernment had foolishly allowed plays dealing with Napoleonic 
era to be produced at the various theatres, and the news- 
papers of the time were filled with verse and anecdotes about 
the great Emperor. But the "Prince" was finally seized, brought 
to Paris, and then shipped to America where he remained 
silent for a brief interval. New elections were called for 
the fourth of November, occasioned by the discussion on the 
''st^'Elm'^^ ^^^^ °^ "appanage," and these served the purpose of arousing 
"Le" Rordes ^^^ P^^^^ ^^0^ its lethargy. Attacks against the government 
Barricades" became violent and the famous caricature of Louis Philippe 
"La Poire Couronnee" appeared. Taken all in all, however, 
this agitation had little, if any effect, and a period of com- 
parative prosperity followed. France was given a breathing 
space and was allowed to pursue and to develop for a time 
her colonial policy. The conquest of Algiers was completed; 
there was peace at home and abroad. This state of affairs, 
was of short duration. 

^ Louis Philippe is said to have remarked to the Prussian ambassa- 
dor: "Priez le Roi de prendre en consideration en me jugeant les 
difficultes de ma position. Aussi j'ai du prendre pour six mois 
M. Thiers pour montrer a la France ce qu'il vaut. II me faut infine- 
ment de patience et de persistence pour conduire ma barque." Louis 
Philippe's own words to Werther, quoted Hillebrand I, 636. 

'Mole, Guizot, de Remuscat, Duchatel, Montalivet. 

80 



In 1839 there occurred a memorable event in the history of 
parliamentary government in France. For some time there 
had been gradually forming a coalition that seemed to por- 
tend a reunion of some of those very elements dispersed at 
the fall of the "Ministry of All Talents." In the Chamber there 
had come about a feeling of sympathy among the leaders of 
the different parties. Guizot and Dufaure of the Right Center, 
Berryer of the Extreme Right, Thiers of the Left Center, 
Odilon Barrot of the Dynastic Left, and even to a certain 
extent Lamartine of the Extreme Left were slowly finding 
that they all had certain causes for mutual action. But, this 
was not the reunion for which Mole had striven; in fact, it 
was against the Prime Minister himself that they were form- 
ing. There is only one reason for this phenomenal 
rapprochement; the majority of the Mole Cabinet were be- 
come the blind instruments of the king's policy. This policy, 
as it appeared to everyone, would be fatal; it demanded con- 
cessions with bad grace at home and too ready concessions 
abroad. The Eastern Question was already of prime im- 
portance and many felt that therein lay France's glory. Then 
too, the Spanish question was still unsettled. Furthermore, v. Moniteur, 
a change of attitude on the part of the king rendered their 4-5 ^^^^•■> 
solution more remote as far as France was concerned. For 
Louis Philippe had long since begun to regret that he was 
of revolutionary origin, and he now sought to have this fact Journal des 
forgotten. His recent experiences had shown him that he ^ .^^^ 
need no longer expect much from the Liberals, and he had 1836 
in contemplation a thorough policy of reaction. By 1839, 
then, Louis Philippe was resolved to discard nearly all appear- 
ances of liberalism and he was now more likely to listen to TilneT 
the cunning of Metternich. As we have seen, the Austrian Sept. 5, 
until 1836 had employed a policy of intimidation in regard ^ ■^ 
to the July Monarchy, and during this period the king had 
kept aloof from him in a wary fashion." But upon the inau- ^_ Metter- 
guration by Louis Philippe of a policy of personal govern.- nich Nach 
ment, the direct influenceof old reactionary doctrines became Papieren, 

V, VI and 

' "Metternich commenca par traiter Louis Philippe en ennemi sans vil ; especi- 

lui faire du mal, et finit par le traiter en ami sans lui faire du bien." ally VI and 
Debidour, "Etudes Critiques," Metternich et la Monarchie de Juillet, ^^^ 

P- 331. 

81 



apparent. The first evidence of this new influence is found 
Hillebrand, in the year 1836 during Thiers' first term as Premier. It 
et'sea^ will be remembered that in that year Louis Philippe suddenly 
reversed the poHcy he had formerly pursued in regard to 
Spain, and a quarrel with Thiers, leading to the latter's resig- 
nation, followed. At that very moment the king was hunting 
a wife for his son and heir, the due d'Orleans, and was con- 
sidering the possibility of obtaining the consent of the Emperor 
to a marriage with the Archduchess Theresa. This quarrel 
with Thiers also led to a brief estrangement with England, 
for the latter country had interpreted his action as a re- 
nunciation of the Quadruple Alliance. The significant fact 
is that for the moment the king did not seem to care. The 
second indication of a tendency on the part of the king to 
reverse his former policies is still more convincing; Louis 
Phihppe seemed to have lost interest in the final settlement 
of Belgian affairs. Here were two great events in which the 
king had shown such interest in the years 1833 and 1834; 
how account for this change of attitude? The question is 
answered by the following fact; for some time it had been 
known that Louis Philippe, through Saint-Aulaire, was carry- 
ing on a considerable correspondence with Metternich. It 
was to combat this new influence, then, that the "Coalition" 
was formed, and to save France from a new peril they re- 
solved to strike at once. It was when Louis Philippe (through 
Mole) seemed likely to definitely reverse his entire attitude 
towards Spain that the Coalitionists decided to act. Other 
questions, less important were pending, and using these 
the coalition protested. New elections were called. On 
March 8, 1839 the new chamber was returned, and it was 
found that there were 252 Coalitionists against 207 Minis- 
terial. Mole resigned on that day. The first effort of Met- 
ternich had failed; the English Alliance, one of the bases 
of the July Monarchy, had been saved by the actions of the 
Parliamentary Coalition. 

If, however, Metternich's plot did not succeed the first time, 
it was not long before another event would give him the 
opportunity he sought. After a brief interval during which 
time there occurred the riot of the "Society of the Seasons," 

82 



the Soult ministry was formed. It lasted but six 
months. Soult was not vigorous, and seemed totally unfit to 
cope with a very serious question of foreign policy now ap- 
pearing on the political horizon. The Chambers demanded 
Thiers, and the disagreement upon the question of the dot 
of the due de Memours became the occasion of the Marshal's 
downfall. Nothing more remained for Louis PhiUppe to do 
but to call a man from the Left Center. Accordingly, on the 
fourth of March, 1840, Thiers formed his second ministry. 
One main question occupied the entire attention of the country 
during this year and that was the affair of Mehemet-Ali and 
the Orient. 

The Turkish Empire was at this time embroiled with one of 
its former vassals, Mehemet-Ali, who more than once had 
saved the Sultan from serious defeat. As a reward for his 
services he had asked of Mahomet the hereditary vice-regal 
rights over Egypt and Syria with the express stipulation 
that he would always acknowledge the sovereignty of the 
Porte. But the Sultan feeling more independent because 
of a recent treaty with Russia whereby the Tsar in return 
for promised protection obtained the right of entrance into 
Dardanelles, refused his vassal's request. Mehemet-Ali then 
complained to France, England and Austria, warning them 
that Russia controlled nearly half the Ottoman Empire, and 
was oppressing it under the pretext of protecting it and that 
she would "become in the end a colossus which, standing 
between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, would make 
the world turn left or right according to her own caprice." 
The powers to whom this appeal was made acknowledged the 
truth of this observation, but busied as they were with their 
own particular designs, they did not heed the warning it 
contained. England alone seems to have paid any attention 
to it. But when Ibrahim, the son of Mehemet-Ali entered 
into Syria with an armed force they all took fright, and cried 
with one voice, "The Integrity of the Ottoman Empire must 
be preserved." England, in accordance with her entente, had 
asked Louis Philippe to protest against the Dardanelles ar- 
rangement in 1839, but he had declined. So, Palmerston in 
1840 turned elsewhere to see what could be arranged, for he 



L. Blanc, 
Hist., 
11, 615 



V. de Malor- 
tie. ch. on 
Mehemet- 
Ali 



V. Speech 

Queen 

Victoria, 

Hansard, 

Mar., 1840, 

p. 62 



83 



L. Blanc, 
n, 043-4 



Edinburgh 

Review, 
Feb., 1840 



Metter- 

nich's own 

words, De- 

bidour, 

"Etudes 

Critiques," 

341-2 



felt that there would not be the slightest hope of assistance 
from France. Furthermore France had already shown her- 
self favourable to Mehemet-Ali. This, from England's point 
of view, rendered the French position all the more suspicious, 
for Mehemet-Ali had refused to grant a trade route for 
British commerce; might this not be the price he had paid 
for French favour? To Palmerston, therefore, the Algiers 
occupation and this shown of friendship to Mehemet-Ali could 
mean but one thing — the extension of the French sphere 
of influence in the East. Public opinion in England was 
rapidly changing to Palmerston's view, and in a few months 
they had come to believe what one periodical had observed 
earlier in the year ; that France desired to become at Alexandria 
what Russia had become at Constantinople. Here, then, was 
Metternich's opportunity; Russia and England had a common 
grievance, Russia because of the occupation of Algiers which 
seemed to threaten her own influence, and England because 
of the essential differences between her Eastern policy and 
that of France. The steps leading up to the Quadrilateral 
Treaty were many and complicated. In brief, it soon became 
evident that England, Austria and Russia were to be lined 
up against Mehemet-Ali and France. The treaty was signed 
at London on July 15th between England, Russia, Prussia 
and Austria, for the purpose of subduing Mehemet-Ali and 
insuring "the integrity of the Ottoman Empire." War seemed 
imminent, but suddenly Louis Philippe checked Thiers. Could 
it have been the words of Metternich that arrested Louis 
Philippe in the fulfilment of the policy of his progressive 
Premier: "The King belongs to one party and the Ministry 
to another. In such a situation, how can France be trusted?" 
The "King of the Glorious Days" bowed before a veritable 
reincarnation of the Holy Alliance, and Thiers resigned Oc- 
tober 29th. France had been again excluded from the 
European concert, the English Alliance seemed broken. It 
remained for Guizot to repair for a time and then reestablish 
the old state of affairs. 

These were, in the main, the political events of importance 
during the Period of Parliamentary Rivalry and Decline fol- 
lowing the Ancona affair and the condemnation of VAvenir. 



84 



During that period personal government was established, then 

overthrown, only to be reestablished through the weakness 

of a king duped by the clever negotiations of one of the 

greatest diplomats of his age. Having this outline of events 

always in mind, it now remains to follow the fortunes of the ^- ^- *^^ 5i 

party condemned by an act of Papal authority in 1832. La 

Mennais, it will be remembered, was abandoned, Lacordaire 

thrown into terror at his own rash acts and sayings, and 

Montalembert torn between the love of his former leader Debidour 

and his faith. Disconsolate the latter wandered over Europe 43o-i 

seeking the distractions his former guide had bade him seek, 

and after a long interval he found an interest in the forgotten 

legend of St. Elizabeth. This labour prepared his mind for 

a still greater work. In the meantime, the Liberal Catholic „, 

=" ' Tnureau- 

cause was not without its new disciples and reorganizers. Dangin, 
Such a great movement could not be eradicated by the mere ^'^°"- J"']'^* 
stroke of a pen on a Papal allocution. Another group was 
forming, separate and distinct at first, but soon to have direct 
continuity with the silenced party of I'Avenir through the 
adherence of Lacordaire, de Coux, de Carne, the brothers 
Bore and Montalembert. And while these men did not carry 
the mantle of La Mennais with them into the new group, 
while his name was often openly disavowed, still they did 
not escape from his general teachings, or his professed 
theories. The new Liberal Catholic Movement, to be known 
later as the "Neo-Catholic" Movement, was merely the "epoque 
organique" of an earlier formative and critical period ; much 
was abandoned but nothing was added. In the end, Montalem- 
bert and Lacordaire received the reward of their earlier and 
less successful ventures, by seeing their efforts crowned in 
the granting of some of those very rights which VAvenir 
had so vahantly demanded — liberty of association and liberty 
of teaching. After all are there not included in these two 
privileges all the other liberties demanded by the young dis- 
ciples of La Mennais ? Why, then, was the new group to 
succeed where La Mennais had failed? There are many 
answers to that question and all of them are important, 
but the principle reasons to be remembered at this time are 
three in number. In the first place, they had the patience 

85 



and the faith that La Mennais lacked. Then, too, they con- 
centrated their efforts in three single directions, charity and 
the demand for the two liberties mentioned above. And 
lastly, they were careful always to have the support of some 
of the higher clergy. It was indeed a smaller programme, 
and less noble also in that its aspirations did not mount so 
high. But these characteristics became the virtue of the 
new movement and the secret of its success. L'Avenir with 
its interests in Poland, Belgium, Ireland, and Germany, with 
its demands for reforms really needed not only in France 
but all over the world as well, had soared into the realms of 
the impossible, and had created a real confusion of purposes. 
There was to be little inconsistency after all, with the early 
professions of this offspring of La Mennais' group and their 
submission to Gregory XVI. In the end they found that 
they could advocate and practice the same doctrines, in mod- 
eration, as they had done in 1830-1831. If anywhere, the 
inconsistency lay in the action of the Papacy, for two years 
later it permitted the Liberal Catholics to recommence their 
work, and yet the Encylical "Mirari Vos" was not disavowed. 
Such a contradiction is hard to explain. It only indicates 
once again the subordination of the Vatican to the influence 
of things temporal ; Italy was now comparatively at peace, 
there was no danger. The Liberal Catholics might speak 
again, but without the mention of politics. The whole affair, 
on Rome's side is utter casuistry. There were, moreover, 
other virtues the new school possessed which were to its 
advantage. It was more general, less individual ; more human, 
less theoretical ; and, finally, it appealed to all Catholics and not 
to a small group of enthusiasts in that it required its members 
to disregard all dynastic questions, all political turmoils in 
France and elsewhere, and to fight for the rights of the 
church alone. The era of Napoleon and Pius VII had wit- 
nessed the renaissance of Ultramontanism, the era of La 
Mennais and Gregory XVI had seen its first activity, while 
the era of Montalembert, Ozanam and Piux IX witnessed 
its transformation from the temporal to the spiritual alone, 
and its triumph, as the logical result of such a change. This 
gradual evolution, however, did not prevent it from exer- 

86 



cising quite an influence on the political life of 1840- 1848, 
years when Guizot as sole agent of the king was fostering 
a policy that brought to its inevitable end the July Monarchy. 
The Liberal Roman Catholics gained their victory in the 
Period of Decline and Transformation of the Monarchical 
Principle as established at the Revolution of 1830. 

The beginnings of the new movement were much more 
humble, much less important, and attended with far less eclat 
than the debut of the former school. They began by a single 
act of charity. 

In 1834 a young student at Paris wrote to M. de Falconnet : 

"I am surrounded in certain respects by many temptations ; 
from every side they cry out to me, they urge me on, they 
push me toward a career entirely different from my studies; 
simply because God and my education have endowed me 
with a slight 'largesse' of ideas and a certain breadth of 
tolerance, they seek to make me the chief of 'la Jeunesse 
CathoHque' in this country. ... I do not tell you this from 
pride, for, on the contrary, I realize only too well my own 
weakness, I, who have not yet attained my twenty-first year; 
their compliments rather humiliate me, and I often want to 
laugh at my own importance. But I have no cause for laugh- 
ter, on the contrary I suffer unbelievable torments when I 
realize that all these thoughts may rise to my head, in- 
toxicate me, and force me to give up what until now I have 
regarded as my chosen career, what has been the constant wish 
of my parents, and what I really feel I want to do myself." 

Thus wrote Frederic Ozanam, a student in Paris, just two 
years after the fall of La Mennais. A youth delicate in 
health but gifted with a wonderful energy, he was destined 
to become the founder of the new school, and later, in the 
highest circle of learning in France, a distinguished professor 
of literature and history, who in all his works served the 
Faith, and by his life as a scholar, a friend of the poor and 
71 Catholic, merits all the honours with which Rome has em- 
bellished his memory since his death and which she may be 
holding in store for him.^" The life of young Ozanam reads 

^"The centenary of the birth of Ozanam was celebrated recently 
(1913) in Paris and there has been talk of his beatification. Surely 
Rome could render no greater honour to herself, to those of her faith 

87 



Lettre, 7 

Janv., 1834 

Pages 

choisies 



Charles 
Huit, 99 



V. F. Oza- 

nam, 
"Philosophic 
Chretienne," 

I, 4 



V. ex La- 
martime to 
Ozanam, 6 
Oct., 1 83 1 
"Pages 
choisies" 



like a poem of the golden ages of Christianity and yet is 
tinged with enough of the modern thought of today to 
serve as a noble example to his successors. His works, in 
turn, possessed all the beauties of Chateaubriand with none, 
happily, of his faults. They were scientific, logical and 
persuasive but lacked the absurd sentimentality of the earher 
poet. His "fitudes Germaniques," "History of Civilization 
in the Fifth Century" and his other great work "Dante and 
Catholic Philosophy," revealed Christianity in its true and 
original light, simple, trusting and of enduring power. Their 
effect was remarkable; they raised the hearts of those readers 
who believed but feared for their belief, and showed to the 
proud men of the so-called "Enlightenment" the very light 
for which they sought to create, a substitute which they 
failed in the end to sustain. This, in brief, was part of the 
service Frederic Ozanam rendered to his people. To others 
again the example of his life, thought and friendship was a 
still greater inspiration.^^ 

Such was Ozanam, not ascetic but moderate; unselfish and 
modest. Thus it was that at the very moment when a too 
proud and therefore less exact science cried aloud that they 
were sounding the death-knell of Christianity in France, a 
young and ardent believer, their equal in ability, entered the 
field of literature to defend and release his Faith.i^ The 

and to the Christian world at large, than the elevation of this beautiful 
character, the father of a family, a man of the world and a sincere 
believer, to the ranks of the many prophets and martyrs in whose 
steps he has followed. 

"Introduction of Pierre Chaveau to "F. Ozanam," P. A. R. D. 
Chaveau. Intro, (p 3) : "Toute sa vie fut une simple predication, 
par la parole, par I'ecriture et par Taction." 

^ "C'est qu'en effet que cette historic litteraire et sociale des temps 
barbares esquissee d'une main si habile et si sure, n'a qu'un but; 
mettre en lumiere la longue et laborieuse education dont TEurope est 
redevable au Catholicisme." Charles Huit. Ozanam 10. Speaking of 
his versatility: "En parcourant ce vaste ensemble de notes, de legons, 
d'ecrits, on croit parcourir I'atelier d'un sculpteur qu'aurait disparu 
jeune encore, et qui aurait laisse beaucoup d'ourages arrives a un inegal 
degre de perfection. II y a la des statues terminees et polies avec 
une extreme diligence, il en est qui ne sont qu'ebauchees et degrossies 
a peine mais toutes portent I'empreinte de la meme ame et la marque 



88 



greatness of Ozanam's talent could not be denied even by his 
strongest opponents and the men less likely to notice him be- 
cause of his religious and political views could not fail to 
render homage to him. 

In 1832, then, this young scholar was in Paris, a student 
at the Sorbonne and the Ecole de Droit. The conditions 
among the students in Paris were not what might be called 
happy, there was much restlessness and discussion. Every 
day the University was becoming more proud of the power 
given it by the "Code Universitaire" of Napoleon, and less 
tolerant of its possible rivals. Hence its hostile attitude to 
religion and to all those, not only Catholics, who desired 
the right to teach their own systems of philosophy. Alarmed 
to a considerable extent by the showing made in the courts 
by the "Agence" in the "Ecole Libre" affair (1831), its at- 
titude had become more and more hostile until the University 
itself appeared in many ways to be the very center of anti-re- 
ligious feeling, while such men as Jouffroy, Quinet, Michelet, 
Cousin and others had not hesitated to attack the Catholic 
faith in their lectures and in their works. Jouffroy, in par- 
ticular, had become offensive in this respect, for, regarding 
religion as a system of philosophy which was on the wane, he 
had criticised it in this light and referred to the ancient Chris- 
tian hierarchy as an institution of the past. This treatment 
could not help but arouse in the hearts of some of his young 
hearers newly come from homes where Christian principles 
were still upheld, a decided feeling of resentment, and it was 
not long before a small group of them, having common sym- 
pathies in this respect, formed an organized opposition for 
the purpose of contradicting either by writing theses or by 
cross questioning their lecturers, certain statements made by 
the "Universitaires" during their conferences. In 1832 
Ozanam wrote : 

"Twice already I have taken my part in this good work 'Lettre, 

by addressing to them (the lecturers) my written objections. 1832 

But we have had most success in the course of M X (prob- ^^.Sf^~ 

^*^ cnoisies, 

ably Jouffroy). On two occasions he has attacked the Church ; 45 

de la meme main." F. Ozanam. Introduction (2) of J. J. Amper to 
Ozanam Works, p. 2. 

89 



the first, in treating the Papacy as a passing institution, born 
under Charlemagne and dying today; the second in accusing 
the clergy of having always favoured despotism. Our re- 
plies, which were read publicly, have had the best result on 
both the professor and on his hearers who have applauded 
us. But the most useful effect in this work has been to 
demonstrate to 'la jeunesse etudiante' that it is possible to 
be a Catholic and have common sense, to love religion and 
liberty at one and the same time, and finally, to draw them 
from a state of religious indifference and accustom them to 
serious discussion." 

This passage, particularly the latter part, is interesting in 
more than one respect. It shows not only the tendency of 
the "Universitaires" and the germs of a second nascent re- 
ligious reaction under the July Monarchy, but it suggests also 
the very ideals of La Mennais and the earlier school "Dieu 
et la liberte," a reaction against indifference and the uphold- 
j~j , . , ing of the Christian doctrine based on "sens commun." Fol- 

E et E, lowing out still another ideal of La Mennais, almost, in fact, 
4^^"^ seeming to have read his injunction "go, like the twelve 
fishermen and reconquer the world," this small group began 
to organize. In 1833 they founded, after the model of an 
older society known as the "Society of Good Works", an 
organization called for a time "les Conferences Saint Vincent 
de Paul," later named "la societe Saint Vincent de Paul." 
It was essentially a lay organization governed by laymen and 
was, furthermore, distinct and separate from all political so- 
cieties. Its aims were humble and consisted of the dispensing 
of charity, the instruction of the poor and the assuring of re- 
ligious consolation to prisoners and the dying poor. The 
influence of this new society rapidly spread ; people wer^ 
attracted to it by its very simplicity and by the fact that it 
was a religious guild devoted to the sole interest of religion 
and free from all political controversy. To the joy of its 
founder it remained so. Phenomenal progress attended its 
debut; within a year it had four branches in Paris and others 
in Nimes, Lyons, Nantes, Rennes, Dijon, Toulouse and Rome. 
Bailly the first president, then organized a general council 
at Paris. The Society Saint Vincent de Paul is now one 

90 



of the greatest and most efficient organizations of the Roman 
Communion. Branches of it are found wherever there is a 
Roman Catholic parish, and in France, the country of its 
birth, it is become the foremost charitable organization in 
the church. Thus the very first effort of the New Liberal 
Catholic Party enjoyed immediate success, and the young 
leader, so encouraged, eagerly set to work on other plans. ^^ 
But the Society Saint Vincent de Paul did not satisfy all 
their needs ; a more open discussion was necessary, and this 
the interest of the new society would not permit. The leaders, 
therefore, decided on a bold step. Ozanam, assisted by a 
few of his supporters Lejouteux, de Montazet and Madame 
Swetchine, the friend and adviser of the young enthusiasts, 
appealed to the Archbishop of Paris, Mgr. de Quelen, asking 
him to throw open the pulpit of Notre Dame to the discussion 
of present day religious questions. Their main object was 
to combat thereby the theories of the University and the 
lectures of M.M. Jouffroy and Michelet in particular. But, 
de Quelen, who had had enough experience with the too 
hasty eagerness of their predecessors was wary, and while Debidour 
he did encourage them and is said to have exclaimed to E et E, 433 
Ozanam: "J'embrasse en votre personne toute le jeunesse 
catholique," he was nevertheless unwilling to comply with 
their entire request and undertook to supervise and even chatelain 
deliver some of the serm.ons himself. For the time being "Pages- 
the conferences had little success. In the meantime, however, '^ AV^Jfg' 
Lacordaire had found his calling, and by his lectures to the 
students at the "College Stanislaus" he was accomplishing 
the very work the New Liberal Catholics had wished to 
begin. His conferences created a great sensation, became 
fashionable, and were attended by such eminent mem as 
Chateaubriand, Victor Hugo, Lamartine, and Berryer. The 
new group, in turn, were not slow to attend, and soon the 

" In May of that year Ozanam wrote : "Taxes de bigots par nos 
camarades impis, de liberaux, et temeraires par les gens ages ; inter- 
pelles a chaque jour sur ce que nous pensons, sur ce que nous faisons ; 
soumis au pouvoir arbitraire de nos professeurs de I'Universite ayant 
a craindre quelquefois pour nous memes au temps des emeutes, et 
surtout pour nos parents eloignes de nous; c'est une existence bien 
bizarre et bien ennuyeuse." Ozanam, 16 Mai 1833. Pages choisies 65. 

91 



"College Stanislaus" became the rendezvous of the Liberal 
Catholics in Paris. Even these lectures, however, did not 
escape a certain amount of protest from the reactionary party 
at Rome and the Carlists in France. But the voice of the 
latter was not, for the moment, strong enough and the lec- 
tures continued for a time to enjoy the brilliant success 
they had met with in January 1834.^* 

Yet another circumstance favoured them; the efiforts of 
•de Quelen, Frayssinous and MacCarthy at Notre Dame had 
not met with much success and when the Young Catholics 
appealed a second time, the Archbishop listened to them. In 
1835 the pulpit of Notre Dame was opened to Lacordaire, a 
former editor of I'Avenir. To the eyes of many it seemed 
in itself a tardy recognition of the effects of the earlier school. 
The success was immediate. One historian gives a description 
of the scenes enacted weekly at Notre Dame well worth a 
brief citation :i^ 

"To watch them only during the hours of waiting, talking, 
unfolding their newspapers, reading profane books and turn- 
ing their backs to the altar, you would have easily have rec- 
ognized that this assembly was not composed of those ac- 
customed to frequent churches. It was, indeed, the new 
Society of the Nineteenth Century, just as it had emerged from 
the Revolution of 1830. To quite an extent dechristianized, 
it was that very society which after having assisted as indif- 
ferent or amused spectators at the sack of St. Germain de 
I'Auxerrois, four years later was forming about a Christian 
pulpit such an audience as had not been seen, perhaps, since 
the time of St. Bernard; it was this society which thus re- 
established its broken relations with religion and by .its very 
numbers gave to Catholicism formerly proscribed, a new 
proof of its importance and popularity; it was a sudden tran- 
sition from hate to honour which those Christians who had 
seen the two periods before and after 1835 were later unable 
to recall without their eyes filling involuntarily with tears. . . . 
As if to complete the contrast and to mark more exactly 
the progress made, the prelate who presided at these services 
and for whose benediction the crowd respectfully inclined 

" d'Haussonville Lacordaire, ch. V. 
^^Debidour, E et E 433-4. 

92 



was that very archbishop who was yesterday chased from Thureau- 
his sacked palace and forced to hide in the capital of his E^e?E', 
diocese." 9-i2 

This description cannot be the exaggeration of a later 
historian for we have Ozanam's own words as confirmation.^' 
But Lacordaire's success was not to be repeated the following 
year for, the Conservatives and Carlists in the church, most 
of whom were Galileans, taking fright at the phenomenal 
success of the "Neo-Catholics" as they now began to call 
them, brought pressure to bear on Mgr. de Quelen. Conse- 
quently the next year the Conferences were taken up by 
another, de Ravignan, who performed his duty well but who 
did not obtain the sensational success of Lacordaire. 

At this point the question may well be asked: why had the 
"Neo-Catholics" met with such good fortune? It could not 
have come about through the eagerness of their young leaders 
alone. The answer is found in the change of mind that had 
taken place among the people many of whom were now 
ready, willing and eager to receive the good news the "Neo- 
Catholics" brought them. There are three principal reasons 
for the transformation that was taking place in the minds of 
so many men of the July Revolution. One was the fact that 
the church now seemed to have lost all vestiges of political 
power; another cause was that the general mental tendency 
of the age was a deep melancholy, great discouragement and 
a consequent seeking for something assured and fixed to which 
they might attach themselves ; while the third reason was 
the favourable attitude of the "Ministry of All Talents" at 
the outset of the "Neo-Catholic" movement. 

"Le grand rendezvous des jeunes gens catholiques et non-catholiques 
cette annee a ete a Notre Dame. Tu as sans doute entendu parler des 
conferences de I'abbe Lacordaire. EUes n'ont eu qu'un defaut, de n'etre 
trop peu nombreuses. II en a fait huit au milieu d'un auditoire de 
pres de six mille hommes sans compter les femmes. Ces conferences sur 
rfiglise sur sa necessite, sur son infaillibilite, sa constitution, son his- 
toire, etc., ont toutes ete tres belles ; mais la derniere a ete d'une elo- 
quence superieure a tout ce que j'ai jamais entendu. Mgr. de Quelen, 
qui avait assiste a toutes les conferences a adresse la derniere fois 
a M. Lacordaire des remerciements solennels et I'a nomine chanoine 
de la Cathedrale. Voila qui nous met du baume dans le sang." Ozanam, 
2 Mai 1835. Pages choisies 75. 

93 



As soon as it became evident to the people of the time 
that the church had lost her pohtical prestige and was in fact, 
being persecuted by her enemies, the "Universitaires," the 
attitude of the people seemed to change and many of those 
who had been the first to pursue and attack the Catholic 
faith now turned to it as the symbol of so many other in- 
stitutions now menaced by the direction the new government 
was following. The church appeared to them in a new light, 
it seemed an institution noble yet humble, necessary and 
meekly asking their support. If men did not believe in it, 
they were at least disposed to respect it, and to defend it if 
menaced. The criticism of religion and the caricatures on 
the subject, so common a form of attack in the early days 
of the July Monarchy, now seemed to be fast disappearing, 
and even those who might have scorned its doctrines recognized 
its political utility and were not unwilling to assist indirectly 
in its reestablishment among the people.^^ The situation, then, 
was not ideal but was certainly far improved from that of 
former times; at least a political sympathy had been created. 
The second fact favouring a religious reaction is probably 
the most important of the three — the actual mental condition 
among the people of the time. It is a reason more human 

r. chapter and more comprehensive, perhaps, but none the less exact. 

I To understand it, however, it is necessary to recall how in the 

early days of the July Monarchy, Frenchmen again embued 

„, with an overconfident pride, the inevitable result of years of 

Dangin, Revolution, had sought to construct not only an original system 

II, 357-8 q£ political science, but of philosophical thought as well. Some 
of these creations had lived a short time but all, in the end 
failed. Then, their self-established creeds and philosophies 
failing, their political ideals denied them, the men of 1830 
found themselves before a great chasm which they themselves 

" "Ce n'est pas que tous ceux qui se taisent ainsi aient congu un grand 
amour pour la religion ; mais il est evident qu'au moins ils n'ont plus 
d'haines contre elle. C'est deja un grand pas. La plupart des liberaux 
que les passions irreligieuses avaient jadis pousses a le tete de I'oppo- 
sition, tiennent maintenant un langage tout different de celui qu'ils 
tenaient alors. Tous reconnaissent I'utilite politique d'une religion et 
deplorent la faiblesse de I'esprit religieux dans la population." de 
Tocqueville Corresp. ined. Mai, 1835. I. 48. 

94 



had created and over which they knew not how to pass. At 
first too confident in their own hand-made institutions they 
had been able to forget the gap that had suddenly opened 
before them, in the distraction of the rapidly passing political 
events and the hopes attending the early days of the July 
Monarchy. By 1835, however, they were weary of the rapid 
political pace they had set, and many also were beginning 
to feel that perhaps, after all this monarchy that they had ^ above 
created was not to fulfill their highest hopes. It was not long, 
therefore, until all except those vitally concerned, had lost much 
of their former interest in the July Monarchy. Already that 
very mental apathy had set in which Victor Hugo had de- 
scribed in his preface to "le Roi s'amuse." For many, then, 
the poHtical interest with which they had served to veil the 
chasm which they must one day cross, was fast disappearing, 
and, as they gazed over the abyss now become more evident, 
they found on the other side a deep impenetrable mist made 
by their own minds. "Le dixhuitieme siecle a eu le plaisir 
de' I'incredulite nous en avons eu la peine, nous en sentons le 
vide," cried one of their number.^^ Furthermore, this con- 
dition of melancholy prevailed not only among those who 
sought for light and were beginning to find it, but among 
the most hostile opponents of religion as well.^^ All was per- 
meated with a profound melancholy and a tone of utter des- 
pair. And so men's minds were prepared to receive the words 
of the young enthusiasts. 

^* de Sacy, "Varietes," TI. 6, "de la Reaction religeuse," he con- 
tinues : "C'est le moment oti il n'y a plus rien a atteigner, rien a detruire 
. . . ou Ton s'apergoit trop souvent, non sans surprise, que Ton a fait le 
vide en soi-meme et autour de soi, ce jour de reveil, c'est notre 
epoque . . . cette incredulite, avec laquelle le 18^ siecle marchait si 
legerement, pleine de confiance et de folle gaiete, est un poids acca- 
blant pour nous, nous levons les yeux en haut, nous y cherchons, une 
lumiere eteinte nous gemissons de ne plus la voir brMer." 

" V. Jouffroy, "Comment les dogmes finissent." He uttered a veritable 
wail of despondency. In contrast to this despondency was the attitude 
of the Neo-Catholics. Ozanam writes : "Tant que durera la vie 
terrestre du genre humain, le mal est toujours quelque part sur la 
terre, tantot comme tyran, tantot comme esclave. Jamais il ne fait de 
si redoubtables efforts que lors qu'il voit sa tyrannie lui echapper; 
pour ressaisir son sceptre qui tombe il remit toutes ses forces ; a toute 
reaction religeuse correspond necessairement une reaction contraire du 

95 



The attitude of the existing ministry was the third factor 
influencing the beginnings of the '*Neo-Catholic" revival. In 
this factor the new party eventually found a real cause for 
encouragement. The "Ministry of All Talents" were not blind 
to the mental tendency we have just been considering, and 
they soon adopted the policy of encouraging the prevailing 
disposition to respect religion. From the very outset they 
had recognized the political utility of Catholicism. The man 
most responsible for the favorable attitude of the Broglie 
Cabinet to religion was the Minister of Public Instruction. Al- 
though a Protestant, Guizot did not fail to see the very great 
interest the government should have to favour and foster such 
a revival as the "Neo-Catholics" were trying to bring about. 
Upon his entry into the Cabinet, therefore, he set to work 
at once to resolve the difficult problem which had arisen as 
to the proper functions of teacher and priest and to recon- 
cile them. Such a policy alone, he thought, would settle the 
question of instruction in France. 

"If the priest defies or isolates himself from the instructor 
or if the instructor regards himself as the independent rival, 
of the priest and not as his faithful auxiliary, the moral value 
of the school is lost."-'* 

I'impiete. ^ Aussi tandisque le desert se fait autour des idoles du 
XVIIP siecle, tandisque la solitude de nos temples se peuple de 
nouveau, tandisque I'indifiference s'aneantit et que M. Lacordaire fait 
ronner la parole de Dieu sur une auditoir e de six mille hommes, le 
rationalisme n'est point oisif; il multiplie ses revues periodiques, il 
organise une propagande seductive autour des jeunes gens, il enfonce 
de ses emissaires et assiege les hommes les plus illustres, il provoque 
la defection entre ceux qui naguere etaient nos gloires ; il detrone I'abbe 
de La Mennais de ces hauteurs oii son genie et sa foi I'avaient place; 
il nous fait trembler pour la muse virginale de Lamartine ... ces 
choses sont tristes mais elles sont vraies. Nous sommes punis, catho- 
liques, d'avoir mis plus de confiance dans la genie de nos grands 
hommes que dans la puissance de Dieu. Nous sommes punis de nous 
etre enorgueillis en leur personne d'avoir repousse avec quelque fierte les 
efforts de I'incredule et de lui avoir montre pour nous justifier a ses 
yeux, nos philosophes et nos poetes au lieu de lui montrer Teternelle 
croix." Ozanam, i6 Mai 1835. Pages choisies yT. 

^"Guizot's own vv^ords, Bardoux dy. Guizot is said to have declared 
before the chambers: "L'instruction morale et religieuse n'est pas, 
comme le calcul, la geometric, I'orthographie, une legon qui se donne 

96 



Following out this theory Guizot proceeded to widen the 
bounds of religious privilege. In the very first year of his 
administration as Minister of Public Instruction he passed a 
law allowing the clergy to become members of the Committee 
supervising primary instruction. Such overtures, however, did 
not meet without opposition in the Chamber and the same 
year through the combined efforts of Dupin and Isambert laws 
were passed depriving the clergy of membership in the 
"Conseils Generaux" and reducing the number of dioceses. ^^ 
Nevertheless, the church had made a decided advance along 
the path of governmental recognition and the law of 1833 by 
allowing the clergy to exert their influence in the Committee 
on primary instruction practically allowed the existence of 
private primary schools (for the most part religious) together 
with the public schools of the first grade in each commune. 
Later, in 1836, Guizot proposed another law that would have 
allowed the free concurrence of all private institutions both 
primary, secondary and superior (University) with State in- 
stitutions, but this was defeated. He had selected an un- 
favourable opportunity to present his law, for it was on the 
very eve of the dissolution of the "Ministry of All Talents." 
This Cabinet had, however, done much for the cause of the 
church in recognizing its rights and in declaring in no dubious 
terms the right of the church to share in matters of public 
instruction ; and later it was to prove a by no means unim- 



Law of June 
28, 1833 



Debidour, 
E et E 345 



Thureau 
Dangin, 
11, 342, 
et seq 



V. Journal 
des Debats, 
Oct., 183s 
Moniteur, 
14 Juin, 
1836 



en passant a une heure determinee apres laquelle il n'en est pas plus 
question. La partie scientifique est la moindre de toutes dans I'instruc- 
tion religieuse. Ce qu'il faut c'est que ratmosphere generale de I'ecole 
soit morale et religieuse. . . . Prenez garde d'un fait qui n'a jamais 
eclate avec autant d'evidence que de notre temps . . . le develope- 
ment intellectuel seul, separe du developement moral et religieux, 
devient un principe d'orgueil, d'insubordination, d'egoisime et par 
consequent de danger pour la societe." Guizot's own words. Thu- 
reau Dangin, Hist. Mon., Juillet II, 341. 

" Among the opposition the general opinion seemed to be that the 
"Doctrinaires" were again becoming allied with a liberal church party. 
One paper criticized the ministry in the following terms : "L'associa- 
tion doctrinaire de vouloir relever le clerge catholique de I'impuissance 
dont I'avait frappe la resolution de Juillet" and their policy was 
denounced as "un systeme suivi de la reaction en faveour du clerge." 
Constitutionnel, 22 Mai 1833. 



97 



portant precedent that in the first years of their activity the 
"Neo-Catholics" had found political allies timid but willing to 
accord them the rights they demanded, in spite of the protests 
of the opposition. This opposition, in turn^ instead of proving 
its boasted strength, betrayed rather its own inherent weakness 
by its show of fear. 
V London ^^ party, no matter how ardent and sincere its protests 
Times, to the contrary, can^ long exist without entering the field of 
livK ' polemics, and the "Neo-Catholics" were not exceptions to this 
rule. In fact, the need of some sort of representation in the 
arena of politics became more urgent every day. Happily, 
Montalem- they did not lack fighters who would defend their cause — 
"Discours " ^^^ ^Y ^^^^ ^^ had been the case with their too enthusiastic 
19 Mai, 6 brethren of the provinces at Clichy in 1833, but in the 
' pulpit and in the chambers. Their preachers were already 

well known and had been continuing their good work for 
Foisset, some time ; de Ravignan at Notre Dame, Lacordaire repeating 
Monta-^ in the the provinces his success at Paris, and Dupanloup at 
chs. ' Orleans. A parliamentary champion now appeared in the 
4 and 5 person of Charles de Montalembert, peer of France. It is at 
this time that Ozanam, the real founder of the new group, 
becomes less prominent as the movement assumes more the 
aspect of a political controversy. His activity within the 
church, however, lasted until the day of his death. To 
the stronger and more able, physically, fell the duty of fight- 
ing for her political rights. It was not until 1841 that the 
leaders formed the groups around them into any definite 
political party, but from 1836 they were regarded as a by no 
means negligible faction in the political world. What, then, 
were the political opinions of the leaders? Montalembert in 
two speeches before the chamber of Peers had declared him- 
self "partisan sincere de la Revolution de Juillet, ami loyal 
de la dynastie que la representait." Lacordaire, on the other 
hand was not so outspoken. He protested, "je n'ai jamais 
ecrit une ligne qui puisse autoriser la pensee que je suis ua 
democrate" and he added that he also had not wished to ally 
himself with the new government. This statement should 
not be regarded in the light of an evasion or a quibble; it is 
simply an expression of the lack of party interest Lacordaire 
professed in politics, a matter entirely subordinate, in his eyes. 

98 



• to religion." Much later, Louis Veuillot (soon to become the 
editor of the "Neo-Catholic," paper I'Univers) speaking of 
their political attitude, said: "We accepted 1830 with its 
charter, its king, its dynasty, and we exerted ourselves simply 
to obtain from them the rights of the church. We had re- 
solved to lean neither to right nor to left and adopted the 
policy of no alliance with the Legitimists, no aUiance with 
any faction of the revolutionary parties."-^ It is not difficult 
to imagine how the Galileans received the appearance of a 
church party entertaining such political doctrines and declin- 
ing to ally themselves with them. Both factions, however, 
mindful of the Pope's displeasure with Mgr. de Quelen at 
an earlier date, refrained for the time from any political 
unions with other parties.-* 

From 1836 the government had a difficult part to play in 
respect to religion. The office of Minister of Public Instruc- 
tion came to require a man of almost infinite tact and patience, 
for he had to steer a course between a discontented clergy^ 
part of whom formed the nucleus of a rehgious reaction, 
and a University, now become the center of a Voltarian culte. 
It will be remembered that during Guizot's tenure of office 
he had shown himself favourable to the religious reaction ; an 
attitude which he confirmed by articles published after the 
fall of the "Ministry of All Talents."-^ Under the Mole Cabi- 
net the new party made a further gain, but more in the form 
of an internal strengthening and upbuilding. Mole had said : 
"The clergy shall be the sublime preserver of public order," 
and then he had proceeded to leave the church free to act 
in its own internal affairs. It was exactly the opportunity 
the "Neo-Catholics" needed. Their progress must not be 
too rapid and Mole's policy allowed them the opportunity for 
internal development. In 1835 Lacordaire had retired from 
the pulpit of Notre Dame and had spent the following year 
carrying the conferences into the provinces. This work com- 



Ibid., Oct., 

1838 
"Du Catho- 
licisme et 
de la Phi- 
losophic en 
France 



Thureau 

Dangin, 

E et E, 63 



V. d'Haus- 
sonville, 
Chap. VI 



Thureau 
Dangin, 
11, 339 



^ Lacordaire's own words. Thureau Dangin, E et E 57. d'Haus- 
sonville. 134. 

"^ Louis Veuillot's own words. Thureau Dangin, E et E 59. 

^ Le Correspondant, 10 Sept. 1872. 

'^V. Revue Frangaise, Fev. 1838. "De la Religion dans les Societes 
Modernes." 



99 



V. Genin, pleted, he made a second visit to Rome and while there he 
ou rfif Jt^ received the habit of St. Dominique. Then, returning to France 
he reestablished the order within its very borders. This ac- 
tion has two significant phases ; it marks the commencement of 
the return to France of the orders — the Trappists, Jesuits, 
and Carthusians came back in flocks ; but it may also be 
said to denote the alliance of certain of these orders with the 
"Neo-Catholic" movement; Lacordaire of I'Avenir and "Con- 
ferences de Notre Dame" fame a Dominican! The contrast 
is still more heightened by the appointment of de Ravignan. 
his successor at Notre Dame, as provincial of the Company 
of Jesus in France. For the moment it really seemed as if 
the eyes of Rome were opening to the importance of the 
"Jeunesse Liberale." Other orders quickly followed in the 
footsteps of their more daring predecessors. In 1837 there 

^, were four hundred establishments of the Lazaristes in France 

V. Thureau ... 
Dangin, With a capital of 20,000,000 francs, while the Sisters of 

III, ch. IX Charity numbered six thousand. Protests from the opposition 
became more frequent but the attitude of Mole and the 
"Juste Milieu" party was a guarantee of protection to them. 
Mole's action, however, was not entirely disinterested, for he 
saw in the church a barrier against republican and sociahstic 
doctrines. Still another fact now apparent for the first time, 
assisted the new group ; Louis Philippe began to coquette 
with them. He now seemed desirous of forgetting his rev- 
olutionary origin ; What better way offered itself than in 
the protection and support of the church? The crosses 

Debidour, that had been torn down from the tribunals at the time of 
E et E 437 

' the July Revolution were now set up and adorned once more 

all the public courts. It was indeed, a curious change that 

had come about. What had the opposition to say to it? 

Their view is curious : 

"We are Catholics, barely Catholics by name. Catholics 

without faith, without practice, and they warn us lest we fall 

under the yoke of the ultramontane orders ! In truth, let 

us look at ourselves more closely, and let us try to become 

Journal des better acquainted with ourselves. Let us beHeve in the ap- 

A %^itr pearance and in the truths of those liberties, those institutions 

4 JdUV., 

1839 of which we are so proud. Great philosophers that we are^ 
let us at least believe in our philosophy." 

100 



Shortly after the return of the orders to France Lacordaire 
published his "Memoire pour le retablissement en France des 
Freres Precheurs." The same year witnessed the appearance 
of Louis Blanc's "Organization of Labour." It seemed as if 
the government would have to choose between the two ex- 
tremes these books represented. In the interim, a progressive 
ministry came in and by Thiers' appointment, Cousin, a known 
enemy of the church despite his many protestations to the 
contrary, became Minister of Public Instruction. The "Neo- 
Catholics" restrained themselves no longer, but demanded the 
privilege of the charter not for themselves alone but for all. 
Their protest against Cousin was not long in vain, for, Louis 
Philippe, duped by Metternich, soon caused Thiers' withdrawal 
and Guizot was called in to repair the evil he had done. 

Throughout the entire period of Parliamentary Rivalry and 
Decline, then, "La Jeunesse Romantique et Catholique" of 
Paris continued to gain more adherents and sympathy in 
the political, intellectual and social world. The chronicles 
of the time are filled with accounts of the activities and 
interests of such men as the leaders we have mentioned, and 
too, of Ampere, of the salon of Madame Swetchine and the 
beautiful story of Soeur Rosalie. It is true, these are all 
individual cases but they may be taken as reliable indications 
of what was going on under the surface of Society — a re- 
generation of humanity and of the church, as La Mennais 
had called for eight years before, and once humanity and 
the church set on the road to reform under the guidance of 
these leaders, the preparation for a great struggle for liberties 
not Gallican, but those promised by the Charter to which they 
had all sworn allegiance. Why were Louis Philippe and his 
ministers so blind to this regenerating force now preparing? 
Why did they not share in its reform, adopt its sincerity and 
emulate its noble aims and acts? While the old institution. 
a monarchical principle, was entering upon its last phase, a 
new-old institution returning to its own had entered upon its 
ascendancy. Patient hands were to show the church, no 
longer mistaken in her children, the way to success — a way 
requiring the abnegation of old and perhaps wrongly sought 
glories, in order to gain the great prizes of the spirit. On the 
26th of August, 1839, Frederic Ozanam wrote to Lacordiare: 



V. Jean 
Laur, "La 

Femme 
Chretienne 
auXIX^ 

Siecle'" 



"Lettres," 
Madame 
Swetchine 
L. Masson, 
"Soeur 
Rossalie" 



"Every day the number of those among the clergy increases 

who understand that virtue without science is not sufficient 

in the priesthood. And too, among the influential laymen 

Ozanam who, in past years have so often interfered in our diocesan 

Lacordaire, affairs, there are now those who are beginning to see that 

26 Oct., the faith suffers from the alliance with political passions and 

Pages- interests — an alliance with which they have compromised it." 

choisies, The lesson was being rapidly learned ; the struggle was no 

longer far off. 



102 



CHAPTER V 

THE "NEO-CATHOLICS" AND PUBLIC 
INSTRUCTION 

The year 1840 witnessed the inauguration of a policy of 
personal government under a ministry the nominal head of 
which was Soult, but the actual leader of the Cabinet was 
Guizot. This policy lasted eight years and during the period 
when it was enforced many important movements took place, 
the most prominent being: the rise of Radicalism engendered 
by changed economic conditions, the transformation of the 
July Monarchy from a professedly liberal institution to the 
reactionary principles of Metternich and the Holy Alliance, 
the struggle for liberty of instruction carried on by the "Neo- 
Catholics," the growth of the Socialism of Louis Blanc and the 
institution of Reform Banquets by Lamartine. 

The period of Rivalry and Parliamentary Decline had nearly 
laid low the July Monarchy.^ There followed a period of an 
apparently scrupulous form of parliamentary government that 
gave to France a semblance of outward stability and hid from 
many observant eyes the fact that the July Monarchy was 
undergoing a process of inward decay. In fact so strong was 
the external appearance of the country, that most of France 
and many outside observers were astounded when the govern- 
ment fell. They had failed to perceive that for over eight years 
it had been rotting at the core from a political disease, corrup- 
tion, the most fatal and inevitable malady of every government 
that does not know its own mind. When the July Monarchy 
had been founded the bourgeoisie had believed that in so doing 
they were saving France not only from anarchy and another 
phase of the dreadful revolution, but were also securing 
national honour and safeguarding the vested interests. How 

^ About this time Lamartine is said to have remarked : "La France 
est une nation qui s'ennuie." Thureau Dangin 105. 

103 



had they been deceived ! Vested interests alone had been pre- 
served, and these in turn were becoming more and more inse- 
cure through the rise of SociaHsm ; Louis Blanc's ideas as exem- 
plified in the national workshop would reverse all idea of vested 
property.^ In securing national honour they had met with equal 
failure. It was denied in the Ancona affair and again by the 
Quadrilateral Treaty. Nor had they succeeded in preventing 
a still greater evil, for, they had seen anarchy in the streets of 
Lyons in 1834 and in 1836, in the April Days at Paris, and in 
the Morey-Fieschi episode. And all these disturbances were re- 
peated during Guizot's last term of office ! It is not surprising, 
then, to find at this time a marked tendency to return to the old 
in politics, philosophy, and religion. This happened in many 
cases, and to those who did not seek refuge in the old, what re- 
sulted ? A political apathy — soon to be eating the very heart and 
core out of the "Bourgeois Monarchy." It was to be, then, the 
reign of selfish interests, a time when men's minds were taken up 
with their own personal preoccupations. By day men laboured 
for themselves alone, and when the day was over and they re- 
turned to their comfortable homes it was only natural that 
their minds should turn to the old and better times. Not to 
the time of the Bourbons and Louis XVI, that was too remote 
after the centuries of progress they had traversed in so brief a 
space of years ; nor yet to Charles X and the "Congregation," 
that was too recent an experience, but rather to Napoleon and 
his glories now more vivid and real because of the recent 
national funeral offered by Louis Philippe to him. It was 
then to Napoleon and his conquests that the bourgeois turned, 
he had forgotten the horrors of the glorious years of the First 
Empire. With the workers it was different. They com- 
menced to read their paper — the Journal du Peuple — written 
by Louis Blanc and Ledru Rollin and containing a veritable 
hodge-podge of Utopian schemes in which Individualism, Com- 
munism, the Socialism of the National Workshops, the Relig- 
ion of Reason and Anarchism were mingled inextricably. Such 
was their daily mental food. The middle-class, in turn, had 
found its solace in Republicanism, really the Socialism of the 
"petit commergant." Their paper was the National, edited by 

^ V. L. Blanc, "Organisation du Travail." 

104 



the gallant young Arago, Carnot and Garnier Pages, men who, 
at least showed their good sense in that they advised their 
readers to bide their time. 

With such a state of affairs all over the country it is indeed 
surprising that one man coming to power at that time was able 
to conceal this condition from the eyes of many of his con- 
temporaries. Yet this was the task Guizot accomplished, and 
though his methods were not of the most estimable, still he 
well merits the praise bestowed on him for having kept Louis 
Philippe on the throne eight years more. He was indeed a past- 
master at this kind of game. 

Guizot, himself, speaking of this period has said : "Before 
entering on public life I witnessed the Revolution and the 
Empire; I saw as clearly as day their faults and disasters 
.spring from their alternating prepossessions of mind and force ; 
the Revolution gave itself up to a flood of innovations ; the 
Empire to a torrent of conquests ; warnings were not wanting 
to each system ; for both, sound policy was no secret tardily 
disclosed ; it was repeatedly indicated to them by the events and 
sages of the time. They rejected it at all hands; the Revolu- 
tion lived under the yoke of popular passions, the Emperor 
under the bondage of his own. This cost the Revolution the 
liberties it had proclaimed, the Empire the conquests it had 
achieved, and France immense afflictions and sacrifices. I 
carried into public life the constant remembrance of these two 
examples and a resolution instinctive rather than premeditated, 
to search out all occasions for sound policy, conformable to the 
interests and rights of the country, and to bow beneath no other 
control. He who does not maintain, in judgment and conduct, 
sufficient independence to see things as they truly are, and what 
they counsel and command irrespective of the prejudices and 
passions of men, is neither worthy nor capable of governing. 
The representative system, it is true, renders this independence 
of mind and action more difficult to governing power, for it 
has precisely the object of assuring to the governed, to their 
ideals and sentiments as well as to their interests a large share 
of influence in the conduct of affairs, but the difficulty does not 
do away with the necessity ; and the institutions which procure 
the intervention of the country in affairs would guarantee but 



105 



little good management, if they reduced the ministers to docile 
agents of popular ideas and wishes."^ 

From this statement of the former professor of history, it 
may be seen very clearly how simple a matter it would be for 
him to revert, if it would really be a reversion, consciously 
or unconsciously, to old doctrines. For after all it was nothing 
less than the restatement of these same principles couched in 
more modern language. When the time came, therefore, Met- 
ternich knew he would not have much trouble with Guizot, now 
that Thiers was practically silenced, though at this time he was 
still a member of the Cabinet. Any move of Metternich's at 
this juncture, however, would have been inadvisable for, the 
relations between England and France were for the moment of 
too intimate a nature. Guizot himself seemed anxious to re- 
establish the entente cordiale and with Thiers muffled, this 
became a comparatively simple matter, after Guizot's party had 
temporarily allied itself with the Left. Hardly had this been 
accomplished, however, when the country was confronted with 
a very serious problem, that of the succession. On the 13th of 
July, 1843, the due d'Orleans was killed in an accident. France 
was thrown into despair, for such a contingency had never been 
foreseen or even considered. People turned in hope to the Char- 
ter, but they found there no provision for the succession.* It 
was decided that the regency should be entrusted to the due 
de Nemours in the event of Louis Philippe's death. 

The English entente settled, the problem of the regency sat- 
isfactorily resolved, and the last trials attending the Boulogne 
Fiasco of Louis Napoleon finished, the field of political con- 
troversy seemed fairly clear. It was then that the question 
of secondary instruction as promised by the Charter in Article 
Sixty-Nine presented itself. Guizot may have congratulated 
himself at the time that apparently so trivial a matter was to 

^ Guizot, "Memoirs," VII, 3. 

* de Broglie said : "Everyone in thought, calculated the number of 
years which henceforward divide the heir to the throne from the age 
when he will be able to grasp with a firm hand the sceptre of his 
grandsire, the sword of his father; everyone asked himself what 
would happen in the interval, if the days of the king were not meas- 
ured by the wishes of his people and the wants of the State; every- 
one interrogated the Charter and regretted its silence." Guizot, "France 
under Louis Philippe," 21. 

106 



demand the attention of the chambers, but later he certainly had 
occasion to regret his earlier self-felicitations. During the pre- 
ceding ministry (March i-October 29, 1840), the Neo-Catholics 
had remained quiet but they had by no means been inactive. 
They felt their opportunity was approaching and they but 
gained more strength and influence in waiting. In July of that 
year Ozanam had written : 

"It is apparent that the movement which has been carried on 
under different forms, from time to time feeble or violent, 
pusillanimous or indiscreet, philosophical and literary, the 
movement which has animated the "Correspondent," the 
"Revue Europenne," "I'Avenir," "I'Universite," "les Annales 
de la Philosophic Chretienne," the "Conferences de Notre 
Dame," the Benedictines of Solesmes, the Dominicans follow- 
ing the abbe Lacordaire, and even the small "societe Saint Vin- 
cent de Paul," all of them facts very unequal in importance 
and merit, it is evident, I say, that this movement, the character 
of which has been altered and adopted to suit the circumstances, 
is beginning to carry with it the destinies of the country. At 
first justified by the proselytising which resulted among un- 
believers, by the strengthening of faith in many souls who, 
without its aid perhaps, would have lost their faith, and forti- 
fied by the constant adherence of some of the most distin- 
guished men in the priesthood, behold it now encouraged by 
the patronage of the new episcopacy, and the triple nomination 
of Affre, Gousset and de Bonald to the three principal episcopal 
thrones in France, raises necessarily the long quarantine that 
our ideas, a little suspected perhaps, have had to undergo."^ 

But this good fortune, the nomination of the three priests, 
was emphasized by other developments following closely upon 
the appointment of the "Neo-Catholic" sympathizers. The one 
was the appearance in the pulpit of the Notre Dame of Lacor- 
daire wearing the Dominican habit, while the other develop- 
ment was the outcome of the appointment of Affre as 
Archbishop of Paris ; cordial relations sprang up between the 
Tuileries and the Episcopal Palace.^ Certainly the fortunes of 

^ Ozanam, 12 Juillet 1840. 

*A propos of Lacordaire's appearance in Notre Dame wearing the 
Dominican habit, one authority remarks : "Apres cela n'etait-il pas 
fonde a dire en montrant sa robe Je suis une liberte?" Thureau-Dan- 
gin, Mon. Juillet V, 462. 

107 



the church had changed from those early days, ten years before, 
when the clergy, suffering from "mort civile" feared to show 
themselves on the street. The time seemed ripe to demand 
their promised liberties ; the "Neo-Catholics" no longer hesi- 
tated. Consequently in May of that same year (1840) ap- 
peared a pamphlet entitled "le Monopole Universitaire devoile 
a la France liberale et a la France cathohque par une societe 
d'ecclesiastiques, sous la presidence de 1' abbe Rohrbacher." 
This work contained a criticism of the teachings of the Univer- 
.■sity, citing examples of the coures given by Cousin, Jouffroy, 
Quinet, Michelet, Libri and Mickiewicz/ It made three 
charges : that the present system of instruction tended to de- 
catholicize France,® that the Eclecticism of Cousin was a danger- 
ous philosophy leading inevitably to pantheism or deism; and 
that it was the duty of parents to instruct and protect their 
children's souls, and not a duty of the state. Such in brief 
was the content of this pamphlet, the indirect influence of 
which was to be more far reaching perhaps than had been the 
intention of its unknown author. 

What, then, was the "Monopole Universitaire?" In short, 
by the Code that Napoleon had introduced regulating education 
in France, all schools and universities were under the direct 
control of the council of the University at Paris, and all private 
schools must receive the sanction of the University for their 
existence ; their professors must have passed the examinations 
required by the University, and in addition these private 
schools must pay what was called a "tribut d'allegeance" or 
"retribution Universitaire." Furthermore unless it was proven 
that a student had received his education either at the public 
schools or at one of these favoured private institutions, he 
could not be admitted to receive his "baccalaureat." Thus the 
University of Paris was enabled to exercise a real monop- 
oly over all education in France, be it secondary or su- 

^ It is difficult to establish the authorship of this pamphlet. De- 
bidour (I'Eglise et I'Etat 444-S) says : "Cet ouvrage inspire par les 
Jesuites de Nancy, avait ete redige par un pretre de cette ville nomme 
Jacot, et I'auteur est d'autant moins excusable qu'il appartenait lui- 
meme a TUniversite comme aumonier." 

^v. "Le Monopole Universitaire devoile." 



108 



perior.^ The sole exception to this rule was the case of the 
small seminaries that, under the Restoration, had been placed 
under the direct supervision of the bishops. But this exception 
was only a favour and might be withdrawn at any time. 

The opponents of this system based their protest on Article 
sixty-nine, heading eight of the Charter — which read : 

"The following subjects shall be provided for successively 
by separate laws within the shortest possible space of time;^° 
. . . 8th, Public instruction and the liberty of teaching." 

The question of instruction was indeed a debt against the 
Orleanists which must be cancelled, but how ? That was the 
difficult question confronting Louis Philippe and his ministers.^^ 

It was not until 1841, however, that the "Neo-Catholics" 
assumed a hostile attitude to the "Monopole Universitaire." 
In the meantime, the leaders were trying to persuade M. Cou- 
sin and later M. Villemain, his successor, to listen to their pro- 
tests. With Villemain, in particular, this was difficult to do. 
But the younger leaders and some of their older ecclesiastical 
superiors persisted in their efforts, for they felt that an amica- 
ble solution was the most desirable and, furthermore, they 
believed that certain members of the government were at the 
time kindly disposed to them. Moreover, in this their hopes 
do not seem to have been founded on mere hearsay. On the 
first of January, 1841, Louis Philippe had said to Mgr. Afifre: 

"The more difficult the task of my government becomes, the 
more need it has of the assistance and co-operation of all 
those who desire the maintenance of order and the reign of the 
laws ... It is this moral assistance and support of all good 
people that will give to my government the force necessary to 
accomplish the duties it has been called upon to fulfill. And 
I place among the first and foremost of these the duty of aid- 
ing in the advancement and furthering of religion, of combat- 
ing immorality and of showing to the world, no matter what 
the detractors of France have said to the contrary, that the 

' The significance of these terms is about as follows : 
Primary — primary grade. 

Secondary — high school and part college grade. 
Superior — university or graduate school grade. 
^° "Article 69, Charter 1830," Anderson Const. Docs. N'o. 105. 
""Hist, de Louis Philippe et d'Orleanism," 430 et seq. J. Cretineau- 
Joly. 

109 



respect of religion, morality and virtue is still the ruling senti- 
ment among the majority of us."^^ 

There was, moreover, still another fact that predisposed the 
government and many of the people as well, to regard the 
prospect of a struggle over the liberty of instruction as a 
happy occasion whereby public opinion might be diverted from 
the contemplation of a more serious evil. Socialism had 
become more of a menace. Its ideas were embodied in the 
theory of Communism. 

One contemporary wrote at this time : ^* 

"The day is not far distant when all this bourgeois comedy in 
France, along with its heroes and comrades of the parliamen- 
tary stage, will experience a terrible end amid hisses and scorn- 
ful cries, and following this comedy they will present an epi- 
logue entitled "The Reign of the Commune." 

It was to avoid this "Epilogue" that the government sought 
a distraction. The first strike at Lyons, the great revolt of 
1836, the April Days, the Journal du Peuple and the Labour 
programme of Louis Blanc, then, had not been in vain. The 
Industrial revolution continued, casting aside manual labour, 
sowing famine and discontent everywhere. It made its slow 
and inevitable progress along the poor streets of manufacturing 
towns, tearing men from the earning of their daily bread, and 
making no provision for their future needs. Machinery taught 
men far more than the wild and imaginative preachings of 
Louis Blanc and Ledru Rolhn, the principles of socialism,^^ 
Proudhon had cried: "la propriete, c'est le vol." It is no 
wonder that the government trembled. In opposition to this 

^ Moniteur, 2 Janv. 1841. In Guizot, too, they found an ally; he 
said : "Wherever the principle of liberty of instruction is admitted, 
it ought to be loyally exercised, without any attempt or subterfuge to 
give and withhold at the same time. In an epoch of publicity and dis- 
cussion, nothing injures governments more than deceitful promises 
and false words."" 

(Strange words these, when one considers the Cabinet's subsequent 
policy in regard to the question Guizot was discussing!) 

"iQuizot: "France under Louis Philippe," 1841-1847, 348. 

^* H. Heine, Lutiee, 209. 

^^ "Subversive doctrines have taken hold of the lower classes of 
France. They demand now not only equality before the law but also 
equality in the right to enjoy all the fruits of this earth." H. Heine, 
Lutiee, 210. 



vast wave of revolt spreading over France, what had the gov- 
ernment to offer but the teachings of the old school of econom- 
ics with its time-worn adage of "laisser-faire?" This was of no 
assistance, Guizot and his satellites were fully aware of its 
utter uselessness, and, following the example of one of their 
predecessors, they sought a distraction for the country in the 
vain hope that, in addition to serving the purpose of a blind, the 
government might also find in it a useful and helpful ally. The 
question of the liberty of instruction was therefore allowed to 
come before the legislature. 

Unfortunately, the first advances of the government were 
awkward. In 1841 Villemain proposed his law on public 
instruction and at the very outset the author made a statement 
sufficient in itself to turn the sympathies of the "Neo-Catholics" 
from the bill: 

"Liberty of instruction might have been admitted in principle, 
but it is not essential (to political liberty) and the very nature 
of political liberty has frequently been marked by the exclusive 
influence and absolute control of the state in the education of its 
youth." 

In such a fashion the new law proposed to recognize the 
promise of liberty of teaching made in the Charter ! Its other 
provisions were in accord with its preamble; private institu- 
tions were to be submitted to certain requirements of Univer- 
sity training, and state certificates of ability which the "Neo- 
Catholics" could not accept. Furthermore, while the small 
seminaries were no longer restricted in the matter of the num- 
ber of candidates, they were at the same time placed under the 
direct supervision of the State.^*^ After a brief discussion the 
law was withdrawn. Nearly everyone recognized it as a veiled 
deception offered to the "Neo-Catholics."^^ Was Guizot re- 
sponsible? This seems doubtful for he was minister of foreign 
affairs, and was at this time much engrossed in the rehabilita- 
tion of the English entente. It was probably the work of Ville- 
main alone, based to a certain extent on an unfinished project 
prepared by his predecessor. Cousin. 

The results of the law were unfortunate for the government 
and for the ministry as well. Almost at the beginning of their 

"Debidour, E et E. 447. 

"Thureau- Dangin Mon. Juillet, V. 465. 



V. Lacor- 
daire a 
Monta- 
lembert, 
30 Sept., 
1844 



Thureau- 

Dangin, 

E et E, 142 



V. Mgr. 

Affre, "ObJ 

servations" 



"rapprochement" with this new Catholic party, the government 
had played false with them — the result was to be an active 
campaign and a feeling of hostility that became more evident 
as the new group approached their goal. The "Neo-Catholics" 
now felt themselves fully justified in taking a more definite 
stand and in commencing the struggle in real earnest. The idea 
of a "parti catholique" was nascent. This time, however, the 
former disciples of La Mennais would be more careful. Prof- 
iting by their earlier experiences they wisely made three reso- 
lutions ; that their propaganda must not include a great number 
of subjects but one alone, the liberty of instruction; that they 
must not seek to destroy but rather to reform; and that they 
must have the support of a certain number of the higher clergy. 
This last stipulation was, without a doubt, the most significant 
for them, and the very nature of Villemain's law made it possi- 
ble. For, alarmed by ihe attack made on their own powers in 
the clause regarding the small seminaries, the bishops prepared 
to join in the demands of the growing party of "Neo-Catholics." 
Forty-nine or fifty-six of them are said to have protested. 
Their first method of attack took the form of recriminations 
against the University, of vague charges of immorality rather 
than definite accusations against the professors and criticisms of 
their philosophical teachings.^® In many cases these attacks 
went too far and the over-zealous action of the pamphleteers 
tended rather to hinder than assist their cause. But there were 
others among the "Neo-Catholics" who knew the weakest 
point in their adversaries' armour, and in directing their 
energies to this single point they not only gained honour for 
their cause, but also won the sympathies, and in some cases, the 
help of those who, up to this time, had been mere interested 
onlookers. This was the harm Villemain's law did to his own 
cause, the cause of the University ; it laid bare the philosophy 
of Cousin, the head, to the shafts of his enemies ; there was the 
University's weakest point. 

""^v. p. ex Desgaretes "Monopole Universitaire." Vedrine: "Simple 
coup d'oeil sur les douleurs et les esperances de I'Eglise aux prises avec 
les tyrans des consciences et des vices du XIX*" siecle." Debidour 
(Eglise et I'Etat 450) even accuses some of the pamphleteers of falsify- 
ing texts quoted from Quinet, Michelet, Libri, etc., but we have failed to 
find a corroboration of this statement elsewhere. 



1 



Victor Cousin is one of the most pathetic characters of the 
entire period of the July Monarchy. Brilliant and gifted he 
was hindered by a manner and delivery so grotesque as almost 
to detract from the force of anything he said or did. Con- 
scientious to an extreme, upon his installation as head of the 
University he had taken far too seriously his duties and the 
importance of the institution he represented. The University 
of Paris became to his eyes the entire world of science, and 
therefore, the philosophy of the University, his philosophy, 
Eclecticism became in his mind the philosophy, almost the 
rehgion, of the world. It would not be an exaggeration to say 
that what he considered Catholicism to have been for the past 
centuries, he expected Eclecticism to become for the future. 
From Hegel he borrowed pantheism and from Schelling deism. 
All truth is known, but it is found scattered in a thousand dif- 
ferent systems in all of which the truth is mingled with the 
false. It is only necessary to discover in each system that part 
conformable to the truth and to unite the parts of the truth thus 
found in order to establish the full complement of truth. The 
method by which this is done is known as Eclecticism, 
and during the years 1830 and 1840 it was the philosophy 
of the greater number of the Universities. To the claims 
made by the Catholics that Eclecticism was opposed to 
Christianity, Cousin replied that his philosophy and the Chris- 
tian faith were one and the same. But the results as seen in 
the University did not tend to confirm this rather surprising 
statement. In the first place, the actions of the head himself 
have shown that his own views were uncertain and unstable, 
and he was regarded as a charlatan by some of his contempor- 
aries ; he frequently changed his attitude and at the end of his 
life practically renounced his entire system of philosophy. 
Certainly his thesis that Christianity and Eclecticism were 
one, did not seem to hold, for Christianity lost each day in the 
alliance, and the students came out from the University with a 
very vague and uncertain idea of the truths of the faith. ^^ 

^' "Quoi qu'on puisse dire pour ou centre, en louant ou en blamant, on 
ne sort guere Chretien des ecoles de TUniversite." Sainte-Beuve 
"Chroniques parisiennes," 100 ets. "J'ai le droit de signaler tout ce 
que j'ai trouve dans I'enseignement donne an college de France, comme 



V. "L' Univ- 
vers," 18 
Mars, 1843 



V. Cousin, 

"du Vrai du 

Beau et du 

Bien" 



V. Sainte- 
Beuve 



"Chroniques 

parisiennes," 

1S1-152 

H. Heine, 

"Franzo- 

sische 

Zustiide," I 

I, 260-261 



113 



V. Comte de 

Maistre 
Essai sur 
le principe 
genera- 
teur des 
constitu- 
tions 
politiques 

V. p. ex. 
Quinet "Un 
Mot sur la 
polemique 
religieuse," 
Rev. des 

deux 

Mondes, 

15 Avril 

1842 



The courses of Michelet, Quinet, Mickiewicz and Jouffroy 
were such as to warrant this assertion. Furthermore, 
the attitude of the University itself to its opponents is not con- 
vincing. Their reply took the form of recriminations against 
the morality of the Catholics and their institutions of learning, 
rather than a critique of their doctrines. The controversy be- 
tween the two soon became a question of politics and the 
University was upheld by the opposition in the "National," 
"Courier Frangais." "Constitutionnel" and "Journal des De 
bats."^° In the press the "Neo-CathoHcs" found little sup- 
port. The one great Catholic paper Ami de la Religion et du 
Roi regarding them as the mental offspring of La Mennais, 
rather damned them by its silence, and the Union Catho- 
lique, a small paper was the only one to support them. The 
new Catholics needed an official organ ; happily they did not 
lack one for long. Early in the year 1843 the Union Catho- 
lique combined with another paper I'Univers and under the 
editorship of Louis Veuillot it entered the field of controversy. 
The paper, I'Univers had existed for sometime, having, beei 
founded shortly after 1830 by the abbe Migne, but it was not 
until the arrival of Louis Veuillot on the scene that it became 
at all well known. The resemblance of I'Univers and 
I'Avenir of the earlier school, is striking, and it lies not 
merely in the fact that the two papers were the mouthpieces of 
the Liberal Roman Catholics. Their similarity is still more 
evident in the characters of the two editors-in-chief; Louis 
Veuillot employed the same tactics in the struggle for liberty 
that La Mennais had used.^^ Louis Veuillot had declared 
"Notre role est le combat dans la patience et dans la charite." 
But there was too much of La Mennais in him to be always 
patient and charitable, and it will be seen in following the 
course events took during the "Neo Catholic" Movement that 



etant peu conforme a la morale publique et a nor dogmes religieux." 
Testimony of M. de L'Aspinasse before the Chamber of Peers. 
Moniteur, 10 Juillet 1844, Supp. No. 192. 

^ Nearly every issue of these papers for the year 1842 contains 
articles praising the University. 

^"' Deja sous la Restauration Lamennais avait introduit dans la 
polemique des habitudes de violence de sarcasme et d'outrage. M. 
Veuillot, sous ce rapport, fut son heritier direct." Thureau-Dangin : 
Mon. Juillet V, 437. 

114 



more than once I'Univers assumes the language of I'Avenir 
in discussing the University, the Church and the government.^^ 
By 1843, then, the "Neo-CathoHcs" had found support in the 
press ; articles now began to appear frequently from their 
pens — all demanding the liberty of instruction. This same year 
Montalembert published a pamphlet showing clearly the posi- 
tion of his party In regard to the government. They no longer 
feared it. The pamphlet bore the title ''Devoir des CathoHques 
dans la question de la liberte de I'Enseignment" and basing his 
argument on the words of our Blessed Lord "docentes omnes 
gentes" he declared 'Teducation est une partie pratique de la 
religion et comme un droit inherent au sacerdoce." Moreover, 
by citing the sinister example of events in Belgium, he recalled 
to his readers' minds the fact that it was the "Neo-Catholics" 
and Jesuits in that country who had brought about the Revolu- 
tion of August 1830. He then proposed the formation of a 
"Neo-Catholic" Party to protect the church's rights.^^ Aided 
by the bishops he formed the "Association Catholique" an 
ultramontane society whose rule was to be absolute submission 
to the wishes of the Pope. A lay committee was appointed to 
work out a plan of compaign for religious freedom, and of 
this committee Montalembert'* became the chairman. Their 
programme and their challenge to the government was sent far 
and wide. We quote from the paper so soon to be joined to 
"rUnivers" : 

'Tf again you were only compromising your own existence, it 



Monta- 
lembert : 
"Devoir des 

Catho- 
Hques dans 
la question 
de la lib- 
erte de 
I'enseigne- 
ment" 



Deledom, 

"E et E," 

455 



^ For a most striking example of this resemblance : "Cherchant 
reconcilier les besoins de catholicisme avec les entrainements les 
plus legitimes de ce siecle, qui est le notre et nous acceptons, nous avons 
fait retentir d'une voix convaincue un cri d'alliance entre I'Evangile et 
la charte . . . Dieu et la liberte." L'Univers, 2 Janvier 1845. v. also 
L'Univers, 7 Juin 1843. 

^*In discussing the University, however, Montalembert did not fail 
to render homage to the lectures of F. Ozanam and Lenormant. v. 
"Devoir des CathoHques, etc." 
. ^ About the same time there appeared in the Union Catholique the 
following appeal for freedom : "Les CathoHques, les Protestants, les 
Juifs de la France ont done ensemble le droit d'obtenir la liberte 
promise pour I'enseignement. Vous ne repoussez pas les voeux legitimes. 
Ainsi vous honorerez votre legislature, et vous sauverez en meme 
temps la France des malheurs que les fausses doctrines preparent 
pour les peuples." L'Union Catholique, 12 Janvier 1843. 

115 



"L'Union 

Catho- 

lique, 

12 Janvier, 

1843" 



would matter but little to us, and placed, as we are in a sphere 
superior to your narrow little rivalries, to your petty triumphs 
and to your miserable defects, we might well consider you with 
all the sangfroid with which the Agamemmons of the stage 
receive their catastrophes. But from these disorders which 
you foment and create "Quiquid delirant reges plectuntur 
Achivi." If you are the kings of today we are the Archeans, 
and we pay for your foolish acts; that, at least, gives us the 
right to complain. And then, behind us and with us is France, 
the France which you are disorganizing, which you are tortur- 
ing at will, which has need of peace, order, hierarchy, regener- 
ation, and to whom you offer only the spectacle of your follies, 
the fruits of your errors, the heritage of your discords; the 
France for whose welfare you are responsible to God and to 
Frenchmen, the France that endures and tolerates you, so that 
you may not fortify yourselves again under the cover of the 
necessity of a contested existence and the imperious exigency 
of saving yourselves at all costs. "^^ 

This passage has been quoted in full because it is an example 
of the very earliest propaganda of the now fully organized 
"Neo-Catholic" Party, its language is sufficient evidence of the 
strength to which they had attained in so short a time. On the 
first of February, 1843, then, the two papers combined. Their 
first editorial is strikingly similar to La Mennais' first editorial 
in VAvenir : 

"Catholics avant tout, united as brothers, we bring to the 
common cause of the Church and the country, the sincere efforts 
of our zeal. Above all the petty occupations of time and mat- 
ter, to which they seem to have relegated the world of political 
science, where interests and opinions are being agitated which 

^ Again, on the anniverary of the death of Louis XVI the same 
paper wrote : "Non ! Non ! la revolution ne s'est pas arretee. Com- 
mencee il y a trois siecles sur la place de Wittenberg, continuee a White 
Hall et sur la place Louis XV, reprise a I'Hotel de Ville, elle ne 
cessera que par un repentir sincere, par une profonde et lente ex- 
piation, elle ne cessera que par un retour aux verites et aux principes 
dont elle est la negation vivante". L'Union Catholique" 21 Janvier 
1843. 

For the view of a neighbouring country v. quotation from an 
editorial in Morning Post, quoted in L'Union Catholique, 28 Jan- 
vier 1843. 

116 



1 



tend too often to divide men, the faith has appeared as a peace- 
ful and regenerating power. Sovereign and divine truth can- 
not refuse to exercise the right to rule the people ; its influence, 
recognized and accepted, alone can place public prosperity on a 
solid basis. Such has been and such always will be our belief. 

"Furthermore a movement is undeniably at work deep down 
in the conscience of all Frenchmen, in favor of Catholicism; to 
refuse to recognize it would be a strange act of blindness. It is 
to second this work, to develop the action and influences of the j p^^yrier 
Catholic spirit in the heart of this country, that we consecrate 1843 
all our efforts." 

The newspaper was received, of course, with some hostility, 
but most of its contemporaries ignored, for the time, its exist- ^ienne' i" 
ence. This reception, however, did not calm its zeal. The first i Fev., 1843 
question asked of it was an explanation of its political views. 
Their reply was concise and neat : 

"Religion is self-sufficient; it has no more need of politics 
than God has of man ; but man could not do without God, nor . 

I UftfUCTS 

can politics live without a fundamental basis and a superior 5 y&v., 1843 

principle. Religion alone is this principle and furnishes this 

basis, and religion is, therefore, the only, the most important, 

and the most telling of all political things." 

Despite the rather bold language of the early numbers of 

fUnivers in regard to religion and to pohtics it had been ^- JUmvers, 
* ^ ^ Nos. 20 et 

very cautious, and wisely so, in one respect. It had been com- 25, Fevrier 

mon gossip that Louis Veuillot had been placed at the head of 7-io, Mars, 
the paper principally to combat the "Monopole Universitaire" 
and yet so far reference had only been made to it in a vague 
and general way, attacking its morality. Questions again were 
asked, but the editors were patiently awaiting a good oppor- 
tunity to strike. It was in March of that year that the occa- I'Uniyers, 
sion appeared. Villemain presented a law requiring the students ^" ' "^ ^^ 
of the "£cole Polytechnique" to take the "baccalaureat" 
examinations stipulated for all schools. A great howl of protest 
arose ; de Carne supported by such men of the Left as Barrot, 
de Tocqueville and Billaudel protested against the plan and 
L'Univers supported them in condemning what it called the 
insatiable greed of the "Universitaires" for power. It was then 
that Louis Veuillot launched forth his dictum showing clearly 



117 



the stand the paper would take in the matter of public instruc- 
tion. 

"The charter has declared the principle of liberty of instruc- 
tion; petitions, come from all corners of France, demand this 
promise of the Constitution, and the rights inscribed in the 
justice and nature of things as in the Constitution. The power 
of the father, the sacred prerogatives of the family, the most 
inviolable titles of the citizen combine to reclaim this liberty. 
The powers (the government) reply with a panegyric on the 
"Monopole" ; they defend the "Monopole," they expatiate upon 
I'Unwers, j^-g pretended benefits ; they hope to provoke its necessity. We 
13 Mars seriously call the attention of all Catholics and of all honest 
people to this affair. It is of prime necessity for the interest, 
honour and future welfare of the country; it is well worth a 
portefolio quarrel (Cabinet quarrel). It is not a question of 
who are the ministers, but of what they are doing. Betray the 
charter, deceive the hopes of religion, violate the principles of 
the most simple and most evident equity, that is a thing that no 
man may do, even if he have the majority of the two chambers 
to support him."-® 

What was the attitude of the University to these protests? 
Heretofore they had attempted to reply by proving that their 
philosophy was not opposed to Christianity. This, as has been 
seen, they failed to accomplish successfully. Then, theyr in- 
stituted a policy of recrimination. This, in turn, failed. 

Now, in a last desperate attempt they inaugurated the scheme 
of attacking the Jesuits with the hope that they might in this 
day avert the flood of charges now being turned against the 
University by the "Neo-Catholics" and win more adherents to 

^° It is interesting to note that this opinion was not held by "L'Uni- 
vers" alone. One journal criticises the Monopole as follows : "L'Uni- 
versite est I'oeuvre de despotisme imperial. Le conquerant legislateur 
qui avait soumis 45 millions d'hommes a sa seule volonte, avait besoin 
que Ton criit en lui a sa mission a sa suprematie, a son inf aillibilite ; 
il unit I'enseignement a son profit personnel par un simple decret, comme 
s'il fut agi d'une levee des conscrits." It then asks what need has 
France of this system today. National, 18 Avril 1843. Another paper 
of different opinions writes : "M. le Ministre de I'instruction publique 
vient de rediger un rapport claire, parfaitment ecrit, sagement pense 
. . . les journaux hostiles a I'Universite declarent que M. le Ministre 
de I'instruction publique a menti," Constiiutionel, 18 Mars. 1843. 

118 



its side. In so doing, however, the Universitaires only betrayed 

the symptoms of their own internal weakness. All were not 

blind to this, and one paper, not of "Neo-Catholic" sympathies, Le National, 

, J i8 Avril, 

remarked : jg . - 

"What ought the University to fear when it has the favour 
and support of the government, the subsidies of the budget, the 
co-operation and affiliation of the academies who count among 
their numbers the greatest philosophers, the most illustrious 
scholars and the most celebrated savants? It must have very v. Constitu- 
little confidence in itself, very little faith in its own mission, j^^i, 1843 
to see in a few rival schools set up beside those of the Univer- 
sity, its own destruction." 

The first evidence of the "aux Tesuites" agitation inaugurated Journal de\s 
1 «TT • . . „ . r 1-1 o r 1 Debats, 

by the Universitaires is found m the press, bome 01 the 2-6 Mai 

newspapers of the day and even the Court journals, seemed to 1843 

have the impression that the "Neo-Catholic" party was a 

Legitimate clique. In fact, about this same time a rumour was 

circulated at the Tuileries to the effect that the Jesuits were tionnel 

instigating a reaction against the King. Pamphlets appeared ^^ Mars, 

written for the most part by the "Universitaires," confirming Pontlevoy, 

the rumour and, profiting by the already unsavoury reputation Vie de Pre 

of that order in past times the authors allowed their imagina- n, 262 ' 

tion free rein in depicting in vivid colours the future evilsFrance Y,- ^- ^'^■ 

would suffer under the order. Even Villemain, in a discourse jesuites et 

pronounced shortly before this time is said to have declared I'Uniyersite 

that the country needed a controversialist to fight against ^_^_[i encore 

"cette societe remuante et imperieuse que I'esprit de gouverne- ^ des 

Tcsuitcs 
ment et I'esprit de liberte repoussent egalement." Apropos to 

this agitation appeared the disgusting romance by Eugene Sue Quoted 

"le Juif Errant" — nothing less than a libel on the Jesuits ; while Thureau 

Michelet in the columns of the "Constitutionnel" condemned yi^^ Juil'let 

the order in Essays entitled : "Le Pretre," "La Femme" and V, 502 

"La Famille."^'^ The methods of the Universitaires, however, 

were despicable, and many of their contemporaries began to je Pontle- 

speak of them as "turn coat liberals," and to acknowledge ^'^y> "Vi^ du 

^ ^ P. de Ra- 

vignan," 289 

"Another work more reasonable and less fanatical on this subject 289 

was "les Jesuites" (1843) by Michelet and Quinet. In this the authors _. _, 

attempt to demonstrate that the system of the Jesuits requiring abso- yjjjg "Corr- 

lute obedience may destroy and atrophy all reason, will, patriotism and esp. ined," 

even civilization. 6 Decembre, 



119 



1843 



V. de Ravig- 

nan "de 
I'Existence 

des 
Jesuites" 



V. Constitu- 
tionnel, 
Nos. i8 

Mars, 5 Mai, 

1843; 
also Nation- 
al, 10 Fev- 
rier, 1844 



that the government papers were perhaps even worse than those 
of the opposition in this one respect. At the beginning of the 
next year, de Ravignan now provincial of the Jesuit order in 
France, issued a very noble and fairminded defense which 
made a favourable impression. In this apology the author 
showed how the Jesuits had more than once saved the country 
from serious uprisings, and recounted some of the many noble 
acts performed by individual members of the Society during 
the Terror. Moreover the Society was not without support 
outside their own body, and there were many who came to 
the side of de Ravignan to defend and protect the order. It 
was among the "Neo-Catholics" particularly that they found the 
greatest sympathy. At the very outset, when the attacks had 
first appeared in the Constitutionnel, under the title of "The 
University and the Jesuits" I'Univers had come to their support, 
and from May 1843 its columns were filled with articles defend- 
ing and praising them. Furthermore, the editor of "FUnivers" 
and his colleagues were not slow to perceive that it was not 
so much the Jesuits who were being attacked as the "Neo- 
CathoHc" movement and the religious reaction^^ they had 

'^Je fais tous mes efforts qui sont trops faibles sans doute, pour 
contenir, de concert avec M. Lenormant . . . et quelques autres, 
une lutte vigoureuse centre I'enseignement des professeurs du college 
de France. Pendant que M. Quinet et M. Michelet attaquaient le 
catholicisme lui-meme sous le nom de Jesuitisme, j'ai tache de defendre 
dans trois conferences consecutives, la Papaute, les moines, I'obeissance 
monastique." Ozanam, 5 Juin 1843, quoted in "Ozanam" Mgr. Ban- 
nard 28. 

"We read this morning in the Constitutionnel an article entitled 
'The University and the Jesuits.' Last year the same paper wrote at 
the head of its diatribes: 'The University and the clergy,' as for us, 
we will not be slow to reestablish the real terms of the discussion. 
These terms are : 'The Monopole Universitaire-Liberty.' " 

"The Constitutionnel wanted to change the subject, but we warn 
them, they will not succeed. They uselessly evoke phantoms, the order 
will not efface the promises of the charter. And as long as these prom- 
ises continue to be maliciously violated our perseverance will not 
flag. In fact, at bottom what is the polemics of the defenders of 
the "Monopole"? What is it but a simple provocation to all the 
passions and all the hatreds of impiety? What is it but a constant call 
to a violent reaction from the religious movement now operating in a 
peaceful and orderly fashion at the heart of society? These pretended 
liberals claim that they have been attacked and that they are avenging 

120 



instigated. It really seemed, however, as if the University- 
would carry this agitation still further and restrain in all 
directions the principle of religious liberty, for, about this 
time trouble broke out in an entirely different quarter. Other 
religious denominations found cause for complaint, and among 
these protests the most prominent was the case of the Reformed 
Christian Church at Niort, d'apres les Veynes (Hautes Alpes) 
where the functions of the pastor were interfered with by the 
government officials. The fact that the Catholics were not 
the only ones to complain, and that protestant bodies as well 
found grievances tends to confirm the belief that the "Neo- loMaT^iS^s 
Catholics" had a real "raison d'etre." Of their sincerity no 
one could ever have the slightest doubt. 

It was directly following the protestant protest that L'Uni- 
vers feeling strengthened by their tacit support, called the 
attention of its readers to a fact slowly becoming apparent to 
every unbiased observer of the agitation; the University was 
not entirely in sympathy with the government. This fact alone 
could be explained by its origin : 

"We have often remarked the accord existing between the 
dynastic University and the revolutionary press of all degrees ; 
between the University, self-styled orthodox, and the press 
unorthodox in every way; between the University, daughter, 
mother and consort of despotism and the entire liberal press ; 
from the 'juste milieu' the most marked to radicalism the most 
enflamed. . . . 

"Will the government, parties and sects kindly tell us what 
they have gained since 1830? Where is the doctrinaire's 
majority of the nth of October? Where are the fighting 
republicans of Paris, Lyons and Grenoble? Where are the 
conspirators of the rue des Prouvaires and the insurgents of 
La Vendee. Where is the wonderfully disciplined opposi- 

themselves, that is to say that for thirteen years they have con- 
tinued to refuse us the right of instruction promised by Article 67 of 
the charter — see how we are the aggressors ! And because we dare 
to reclaim a promise solemnly sworn, they threaten to withdraw or at 
least to restrain still more the principle proclaimed by an article of v. I'Univers, 
that very charter— religious liberty. ^^^^^'.\ ^^43, 

"Fortunately all the world sees this and all the world judges them. 23 Mai 1843 
What! They have turned against the Jesuits!" L'Univers, 6 Mai 1843. 



rUnivers 

13 Mai 

1843 



Quoti- 

dienne, 

18 Mai, 1843 



tion of Odilon Barrot? Strange thing! Some have had their 
victories, others their martyrs, both have had talent, fortune, 
reversals, triumphs, and all are weakened. Neither blood nor 
gold nor renown nor power have been able to gain them their 
proselytes; the future has betrayed them, but all of them have 
betrayed more or less the needs of a society failing for want 
of truth and faith."' 

It was indeed as the "Neo-Catholics" had said, the Univer- 
sity was become a nucleus of the opposition, for the most part 
republican, and therefore the attacks against the Jesuits were 
republican in origin and in reasoning as well. To a certain 
extent these attacks were a protest against an abstract principle, 
Catholicism, but their object and base were real; the Jesuits, 
by existing laws, had no right to be re-established in France.^^ 
In this attack on the Jesuits, then, the Republicans, through the 
''Universitaires" were denouncing to a large degree Catholicism 
in France, and the government also for being so weak as to 
permit the existence of certain attributes of the Catholic faith 
legally prohibited in France. In such a way had the govern- 
ment's efforts to escape the more difificult questions of Social- 
ism and Republicanism resulted ! They found themselves con- 
fronted with the very problems they had sought to avoid, and 
their means of escape the revival of a Liberal Catholic princi- 
ple had become an almost equal menace. But in 1843 the 
"two evils" (as they were regarded by the creators of the 
dynasty) were more developed, more imperative in their de- 
mands, and more dangerous. Furthermore, who knew but that 
these two extremes, Radicalism (composed of the Socialists 
and Republicans) and the "Neo-Catholics," might not become 
embroiled, and that the Monarchy might not find itself between 
the two, and fall in the combat? Neither one nor the other 
were in a humour to be tampered with. 

We have seen what the "Neo-Catholics" had to say, what 
now, was the cry of the Republicans, the newly become 
"Universitaires " Thiers, speaking of the religious reaction, 
had declared : "Le temps est venu de mettre la main de Vol- 
taire sur ces gens la." The Journal des Debats hearing that 
Villemain was considering the possibility of reconciliation by a 



"La Majeste des lois est compromise." Constitutionnelj 4 Janvier 



1844. 



122 



law, urged him to postpone his action, and, another important 
personage seems to have heard the warning of the Debats 
for he declared: "J^ ne souffrirai pas que I'etat soit trouble 
par une guerre de cuistres et de bedeaux"^° All the press 
entered the arena and we find as little logic in their sympathies 
and political positions as there was in their statements. Ex- 
cept for the papers published under the supervision of the 
religious parties, the principal combatants on the field were the 
Journal des Debats and the Globe; the former declared 
"If the State supervises the sects, she does so as much to the 
purpose of protecting them as for restraining them," while the 
other speaking of religious instruction repeated incessantly 
"this request based on the charter is based on common sense 
as well." These statements indicate clearly the divisions exist- 
ing even within party lines, on the question of freedom of in- 
struction. The following few lines from another paper betray 
a division in a far more serious quarter : 

"We are given to understand that the political faction of 
the ministry, that faction that thinks itself so clever and so 
superior, blames the impulse given to the press and to the 
official chairs (of the University) by another party (in the 
Cabinet) disposed to second the fanaticism of the "Universi- 
taires." M, Guizot thinks differently from M. Villemain, and 
M. Soult says he doesn't understand at all the "case of con- 
science" of the Journal des Debats. But Guizot and M. 
Soult have striven in vain, the University dominates and rules 
them. . . . This is the antagonism that has just broken out 
in the midst of the government; on one side a practical spirit 
of discipline, on the other a spirit-doctrinaire and chimerical ; 
on the one, a policy clothed in the semblance of a system of 
morality, on the other, a philosophy coquetting with theories 
of disorder." 

It did indeed seem a hopeless state of affairs, for, so divided, 
the government certainly could not effect a reconciliation of the 
two opponents. Between a divided ministry, between the "Neo- 
Catholics" and the "Universitaires," stood Louis Philippe. 
His attitude at this stage of the agitation is interesting. Of 

^ L'Univers, i8 Mai 1843. Debidour ("I'Eglise et I'Etat" 463) at- 
tributes this remark to Louis Philippe. 



I'Univers, 
18 Mai, 1843 



Journal des 

Debats, 
15 Mai, 1843 

Journal des 

Debats, 
12 Mai, 1843 



Le Globe, 
14 Mai, 1843 



Quoti- 

dienlne, 

18 Mars., 

1843 



V. Constitu- 

tionnel, 1-3, 

1843 



123 



I'Univers, 



V. d'Haus 

sonville, 

"Lacor- 

daire," 

VII 



sympathies fundamentally Voltarian the king had wavered be- 
tween the two ; alarmed one minute by the evidence of Republi- 

i8 Ma?*^iS ^^^^^^"^ ""^ *^^^ University, at another by the addition of certain 
Legitimists to the "Neo-Catholic" Party,=^i again by the state- 
ments of Thiers in regard to the University, and then by the 
appearance of Lacordaire, the Dominican, at Notre Dame in 
the last part of the year, he had assumed an attitude of "laissez- 
faire" and appeared to desire to forget the entire situation. 
Perhaps in this policy, he was not so indifferent and so unwise 
as people thought him.^^ Nevertheless, the question could not 
remain long in this unsettled condition; the state of mind of 
TDOth parties would not permit it. Montalembert increased the 
"violence of his demands before the Peers, and the government 
saw it could hesitate no longer. Some satisfaction must be 
given to one or the other — the ministry were brought to realize 
this fact, the people had long foreseen it, and all awaited with 
anxiety the opening of Parliament after the new year. 

From the very outset of 1844, however, the statements made 
by the government did not augur well for the cause of the "Neo- 
Catholics." An early number of Ami de la Religion et du 
roi, too long silent on the question, opened with the follow- 
ing comment : 

"The reply of the King of the French to M. Letronne who, 
in the name of the "College de France" came to pay his compli- 
ments on the first of January, contains a sentence that has 

Ami de la caused us as much pain as surprise. "The College of France, 

^ duroi, 6 inaugurated by Francois i" for the perfection of human knowl- 

Janv., 1844 edge, had honourably pursued its useful work. I am glad 

to tell you how much I appreciate your efforts." This is the 

** M. de Vatesmil, one of the strongest men in the Legitimist party, 
at this time became a member of the Committee on Religious Liberty, 
which with Montalembert as Chairman, had been formed in the 
chamber of Peers. Thureau Dangin E et E. 212. 

^ "Le roi Louis Philippe dans cette querelle de I'Universite et des 
Jesuites n'est pas tres favourable a I'Universite. Si Villemain n'a pas 
propose cette annee sa loi organique sur I'instruction secondaire, 
c'est parceque le roi ne s'en est pas souci. 'Laissez faire' disait-il au 
Ministre, 'laissons leur la liberte a tons, moyennant un tout petit 
article de police.' Le roi est peutetre meilleur politique en disant cela, 
mais Villemain est meilleur Universitaire." Chroniques parisiennes 
Sainte-Beuve 62. 



124 



sentence that has left so lasting and unfortunate an impression 
in the minds of the clergy, for the clergy do not consider 
either as useful or honorable the courses of MM. Michelet and 
Quinet, so abounding as they are in scandal, so hostile to re- 
ligion and so full of calumnies against its priests." 

The above remark of the King, while not so direct a compli- 
ment to the University as his critics have interpreted it, was 
nevertheless another indication of his attitude. He was afraid, 
to a certain extent, of the clergy, he felt they were Legitimists 
at heart, and as his relations with Mgr. Afifre became less cor- 
dial, this distrust seemed to increase.^^ But even this attitude 
on the part of the King could not long be maintained without 
serious danger to a government which was in need of support, 
and every day statesmen urged more insistently upon Ville- 
main the necessity for a new law. Among the most anxious 
of these was Guizot. Although we cannot find any evidence of 
M. Guizot's speaking in either House on the subject of instruc- 
tion from 1840 until well into the year 1844 and although he 
seemed up to this time to have left the question to Villemain 
and his associates, still his belief in the absolute need for 
church participation in pubhc instruction had not waned. This 
silence must have been caused by his desire to keep to his 
ideal of maintaining to the end a conservative majority. Later, 
when commenting on his actions at this time, he said : 

"In the matter of public instruction, I said : 'All rights do not «p"'^°*' 
belong to the State ; there are some, I will not say superior, but under Louis 
anterior to, and coexisting with them. There are, in the first Philippe," 
instance, rights of the family, children belong to the family 
before they belong to the state. The state has the right of 
distributing instruction, of directing it in its own establish- 
ments, and of superintending it everywhere; it has not the 
right of imposing it arbitrarily and exclusively on families with- 
out their consent or perhaps against their will. The system of 
the Imperial University did not allow this primitive and in- 
violable right of families." 

The view of those of the Liberals not exactly allied with the 

''Louis Philippe is said to have remarked: "Je n'aime pas les col- 
leges ecclesiastiques, on enseigne trop aux enfants de chanter le verset 
de magnificat, Oeposuit potentes de sede." Quoted in Thureau Dangin, 
E et E, from Vie de Mgr. Affre Cruice 307. 

125 



r Universe, 
i8 Janv., 

1844 

Speech of 

de Tocque- 

ville, ch. of 

peers, 17 

Janv. 



"Universitaires" at this time is somewhat different. An exam- 
ple of this attitude is found in de Tocqueville's criticism of the 
speech delivered by Louis Philippe to the Chamber of Deputies 
on its reopening in January. In his discourse the King, strange 
contradiction, had uttered the usual platitudes on the peace and 
happy condition of the country : 

"You say that peace reigns, I will tell you again that the 
fight has simply changed ground; from political it has become 
philosophical and religious. . . . Without a doubt the liberty 
of instruction has been the principal cause and pretext of this 
war, but the strife has extended far beyond these limits even. 
Listen to the parties. Do some of them demand only liberty 
of instruction ; rather do they not go so far as to attack even 
liberty of thought, the very principle of education? Look at 
the others and you will see that they do not limit themselves 
to speaking of the University and its rules alone, but they at- 
tack religion itself, and the general principles and rules on 
which it reposes. I say to you that the question of liberty of 
instruction was of such a nature as to irritate profoundly the 
minds of men and more than any other, to give rise to the 
struggle that we condone. You have left this question thir- 
teen years without solution. . . . The clergy ... I say that 
the clergy does not possess any of those ancient bonds which 
formerly attached it to wealth and to power . . . the concor- 
dat placed it in a position of happy dependence on the jurors; 
that its only remaining force in the political world was the 
sympathy of the men of liberty, an!d I add that by the very 
action at this time of some of its members it is losing this 
sympathy. Then, gentlemen, its isolation will become so com- 
plete, so intolerable, so desperate, that sooner or later it will 
throw itself into the arms of whoever offers it power. And as 
in certain other countries, it will become transformed into the 
political agent of the state ; then we will have the most despic- 
able of all human institutions, a political religion, a religion 
servile to the government and assisting in the oppression of 
its people instead of preparing the way for liberty." 

This was the warning de Tocqueville gave his confreres of 
the possible result of their procrastination. This speech paved 
the way for another law on the subject, the chambers were 



126 



notified that a new proposition would be submitted to them in 
the course of a few weeks.^* 

On the second of February Villemain submitted his law. In 
general it resembled very much the law proposed in 1841. 
There were five principal provisions : 

1. The right to open establishments of instruction is recog- 
nized in principle, and this right is extended to all citizens, 
but— 

2. Members of unauthorized orders are excepted. 

3. The State reserves to itself the right of supervision. 

4. The right to open a school for instruction is subordi- 
nated to guaranties of personal morality and ability, but the 
first of these must come from the municipal or judicial authori- 
ties for that purpose for each academy. 

5. Ecclesiastical schools of secondary grade (small semin- 
aries) are to remain under the regime of privilege. 

This was the attempt the Administration made to prove it- 
self liberal. It is in Article two, however, that we find what 
was to prove the real bone of contention. In this clause may 
be seen the direct influence of the "Aux Jesuites" cry raised by 
those very "Universitaires" under whose direct authority all 
educational institutions were not placed. Villemain's law did 
not have a cordial reception, it was acceptable to one party, but 



V. Grimaud, 
"Hist, de la 

Liberte 

d'Enseigne- 

ment, 329- 

335 



**The remarks of the President of the Chamber of Deputies on the 
announcement of this intention were, however, a fair premonition of 
what the result would be : "Nous accueillons avec empressement 
I'assurance que le projet de loi qui nous sera presente en satisfaisant 
au voeu de la charte pour la liberte de I'enseignement, maintiendra — 
I'autorite de I' I'Etat sur I'instruction publique." L'Univers, 25 Janv. 
1844. 

A criticism of the above remark, made in the Chamber the following 
day showed the "Neo-Catholics" that they would find some support 
"L'autorite de I'Etat sur I'instruction libre ! Mais je ne comprends 
pas cette alliance des mots; Qu'est ce que l'autorite? Cherchez en la 
definition. Vou trouverez que l'autorite c'est le droit et le pouvoir de 
commander. Commander a la liberte Messieurs, mais si on venait 
nous demander ice d'etablir une autorite une action sur la liberte 
de la presse y'aurait — il assez de voix pour fletrir une pareille heresie 
contre la Constitution? Eh, bien, Messieurs, la liberte de I'instruc- 
tion, est — elle moins sacree moins precieuse que la liberte de la presse? 
Voulez-vous etablir les categories de liberte?" L'Univers, 26 Janv. 1844. 



127 



rUnivers, 

5 Ferier, 

1843 



V. Le Na- 

tionel Nos. 

3-4, Fev., 

1844 

Constitu- 
tionnel, 12 
Fev., 1844 



V. Journal 
des Dehats, 
2 Fevrier, 
1844 



not to the other ; it was not a compromise and did not offer the 
shghtest possibiHty of solving the difficulty. 

L'Univers addressed the following warning to the Cham- 
bers who were to deliberate on it: 

"Moreover, we do not forget, Messieurs, that article 69 of 
the Charter of 1830 prescribed a twofold purpose to the atten- 
tion of the legislators ; 'public instruction and the liberty of 
teaching.' By these terms the Charter indicates that the exten- 
sion and perfection of the schools should be coincident with or 
even precede any serious modification of the legal regime under 
which all "ecoles particulieres" have heretofore existed."^^ 

The disappointment occasioned by the new law was general.^® 
Even some of his own party turned against Villemain, claim- 
ing that he has lost a glorious opportunity.^'' The Journal 
des Debats and the National alone supported him and de- 
clared that the law was in all respects perfect and that what- 
ever secondary provisions had been made, such as in headmg 
two of the law,^* were rendered necessary by the events of the 
past three years. The majority of the people, however, seemed 
to agree in the following opinions, the one expressed by a 
paper formerly a supporter of Villemain, the other, by the 

^ Another paper noting the attack on the Jesuits contained in the 
new law remarked : "La pensee de ces dispositions n'est pas heureuse : 
elle ne sera conciliee avec les principes d'aucun des systemes ac- 
ceptables, mais nous ne concevons pas ce parti pris de voir tout le 
projet dans une de ces dispositions secondaires que sera necessairement 
modifiee et a la quelle le ministere n'a certainement pas attache le 
sort de son projet." La Presse, 7 Fev. 1844. 

^ Another article from this same paper shows more clearly the 
fact that certain of the liberals realized the necessity of real freedom : 
"Si instruction publique s'est renfermee jusqu' ici dans I'Universite, ne 
voit-on pas que c'est precisement cet etat de choses qu'il s'agit de 
changer aujourd'hui pour obeir a la charte? Ne voit-on pas que 
I'enseignement libre doit etre constitue a I'enseignement national que 
le ministre de Tinstruction publique doit perdre desormais son role 
unique et exclusif de grand maitre de I'Universite, pour devenir le 
tuteur des ecoles libres comme celui des ecoles Universitaires et pour 
peser egalment les uns et les autres dans la balance impartiale de 
I'autorite publique?" La Presse, 8 Fev. 1844. 

*' "Au lieu de se considerer comme le grand pontife de I'enseignement 
universal, il est reste le general de corps enseignant laique, le superieur 
du couvent Universitaire." Courrier Franqais, 12 Fev. 1844. 

^'^V. p. 56. 

128 



Comte de Maistre in explaining the situation to the English 
people : "It is a party act and not one of the whole government" 
said the Constitutionnel; while de Maistre declared : 

"If we do not return to ancient maxims, if education be not London 
restored to the clergy, and if science be not placed in second p^^, ^L 
rank, the evils which await us are incalculable; we shall be 1844 

brutalized by science, which is the last degree of debasement." 

Judging from the law itself and the criticisms quoted, it 
does indeed seem as if the University had lost the only reason 
it might have had for its claims, and had itself assumed the 
very attitude toward secondary education which it had accused 
the "Neo-Catholics" of seeking. The battle royal over the law 
took place in the chamber of Peers. From the very beginning 
it augured well for the "Neo-Catholics" as the "projet" was 
given for examination to a committee headed by de Broglie and 
Mole. The debate opened the 22nd of April and lasted twenty- 
nine days. The Chamber divided at once into three parties ; the 
"Universitaires exclusifs" who seemed to have but one leader ^^ Com- 
Cousin, the "Neo-Catholics" under Montalembert, Seguier and merce, Feb. 
Beugnot, and the Ministers, not all of whom were even of ^^' ^^^ 
accord. At first it was a battle of Cousin and Villemain against 
Martin who represented the government, and who was later 
assisted by Guizot. The reporting Committee, however, was 
weak, and while they did attempt to make a few reforms in the 
bill, their efforts were so feeble that Guizot found himself em- 
barrassed by the revised bill placed before the Chamber.^^ 
But while little actual gain was made by the Catholics in the 
discussion, the results proved to be significant enough. Mon- 
talembert, by his eloquence gained them more sympathy and 
moral support each day. He routed entirely Villemain, as was 
acknowledged even by his most hostile critics,*** and M. Guizot 

'' *'Du travail de M. de Broglie il resulte done: 1° que I'Universite 
est une ecole de mauvaises doctrines ainsi que les eveques I'en ont 
convaincu ; 2° que toute concurrence religieuse, entreprise entre ces 
doctrines sera vaine et illusoire sous la regne de la loi proposee." 
L'Univers, 19 Avril 1844. 

■" "Si de nos jours une question se decide par Tissue de combat 
entre deux champions, apres le duel de M. de Montalembert et M. 
Villemain a la tribune de la chambre de Paris I'Eglise pourrait se 
croire triumphante, I'Universite n'aurait plus que demander merci. 
Que .voulez-vous? la partie n'etait pas egale. . . . Le debut de M. 

129 



did not fare much better in his plea, outwitted as he was again 
and again by Montalembert.*^ 

So far the debate had not resulted favourably for the Univer- 
sity, nor for the government. The ever-observant people, in 
turn, were not slow to recognize this fact and the newspapers 
hailed it with varying emotions.*- Evidently the arguments 
for their opponents had not been well presented, and the "Neo- 
Catholics" might well anticipate a victory. They were not dis- 
appointed. After much debate, at the suggestion of de Broglie 
the matter was put to vote and the result was at least a partial 
victory for the Catholics. For while they were defeated 185 
to 51, they had succeeded in obtaining a larger opposition vote 
in the Chamber of Peers than had been known for some time. 
This fact in itself is significant. The "Neo-Catholics" had, in- 

Villemain a eu lieu sous de tristes auspices. II avait pour lui Tassemblee 
et il a ete vaincu. . . . Cet homme Montalembert croit, il croit dans un 
siecle d'incredulite, il I'exprime avec une energique simplicie, et une 
sorte de sainte arrogance ; ou ? Dans une tribune politique que M. Pas- 
quier domine, et sa parole a librement et fierement passe entre la 
curiosite de ce spectacle original et le respect de cette grandeur que 
communique une croyance intrepidement sincere." Courrier Fran- 
gais, 17 Avril 1844. 

^ Montalembert's reply to Guizot was delivered ten days later. He 
said in part: "J'appelle avec lui (Guizot) le moment de ce qu'il a 
nomme la reconcilation entre I'Eglise et I'Etat. Je le desire vivement 
tout le monde le desire. Mais, pour qu'elle soit durable et sincere, il 
fiaut qu'elle soit fondee sur la justice. Le projet de loi que Ton nous 
propose et que M. Guizot a couvert de son silence rend cette reconcil- 
iation impossible, et c'est pour cela que je viens de la combattre." 
L'Univers, 27 Avril 1844. 

**"iLe ministre a defendu I'education universitaire et attaque les 
Jesuites ; c'etait simple, mais il n'a plus parle de la domination du clerge ; 
c'est un fait dont nous felicitons d'autant plus M. Villemain qui a 
vraiment besoin d'etre encourage." Quotidienne, 27 Avril 1844. 

"Rien de plus facile assurement que de refuter M. de Montalembert; 
mais on a laisse le soin a M. Villemain, et celui-ci, devient deci 
dement le plus mediocre des orateurs, comme il est le plus faible des 
ministres." National, 27 Avril 1844. 

"Sur tous les autres points du discours de M. de Montalembert, la 
reponse, appartenait au ministre de instruction publique, et M. Ville- 
main a engage, en effet, de refuter cette multitude d'affirmations 
tranchantes qui tiennent bien des preuves pour les catholiques. Mais 
comment refuter des pures afifirmations ?" Journal des Dcbats, 27 
Avril 1844. V. also Messager des Chambres, 27 Avril 1844. 

130 



deed, gained a victory, and their leader in the Chamber of 
Peers had once told them that to do this, they must become an 
"Embarras politique." The result of this vote seemed to show 
that the time was not far off. 

On the loth of June Villemain's law was placed before the 
Chamber of Deputies. Thiers was named chairman of the 
Committee on revision. This appointment in itself boded ill 
for the "Neo-Catholics," but the personnel of the committee 
gave them cause for brief encouragement: M. M. de Tocque- 
ville, Saint-Marc-Girardin, Quintette, Dupin de I'Aine and de 
Carne. The Committee's work was not destined to accomplish 
anything of importance, however, as Thiers, when making its 
report, placed so much emphasis on the Jesuits that he uncon- 
sciously turned the attention of the Chamber solely in that di- 
rection.*^ There followed a second outburst of charges against 
the "Neo-Catholics." The accusations brought against them 
were much the same as those the Jesuits had had to disprove 
the previous year — Legitimist sympathies.** The Journal des 
Dehats had not allowed this charge entirely to die out and 
earlier in the year they had reminded their readers of it.*'^ 
Other papers too, had followed their example and a flood of 
recriminations followed.*" A tactical blunder was made in 
directing the accusation against M. de Montalembert. Most of 
his enemies could not doubt for a moment the sincerity of this 
young champion of religious freedom, and he experienced little 
difficulty in clearing himself of the complaints so ruthlessly 
brought against him. 

Persistent, however, in their efforts to discredit the "Neo- 
Catholics" at all costs, their opponents, alarmed by the early Journal des 
signs of success in the Chamber of Peers, revived that anti- -^ ■ g 
Jesuit agitation which had been allowed to quiet down during 
the discussion' of the law. Early in May the "Journal des 
Dehats had reopened this field of controversy by asking: 

"Will the Jesuits become the masters of education in France v. supra Le 
or not ? That is the question now being agitated in the Cham- j^^j jg^ 

^Moniteur, lo Juin 1844. 

^Journal des Debats, 17 Dec. 1843; 12 Fev. 1844. 
^' Courrier Frangais, 13 Fev. 1844. 

**v. also their refutation I'Univers, 13 Fev. 1844. v. letter of 
Montalembert to Journal des Dehats, 12 Fev. 1844. 

131 



Moniteur, 
15 Juillet, 

1844 
Speech of 
Thiers, 13 
Juillet, 1844 



ber of Peers, fourteen years after the Revolution of July, 
under a government sprung from that Revolution, before a 
ministry whose principal members were, under the Restoration, 
deprived of their chairs and prosecuted by the Jesuits. The 
reply in our opinion, is not uncertain. No, the Jesuits will not 
become the masters of education in France. The government 
of France will not thus betray its origin."*^ 

There were not many, however, who held the extreme view 
of the Journal des Debats. On the contrary, there were 
many who felt, what was probably true, that, according to the 
letter of the law, the Jesuits should be expelled, but that the 
other policy of an inquisition into the conscience of every 
one who wanted to teach was odious. Of these, Thiers was 
the principal advocate. On the thirteenth of July his famous 
report upon Villemain's law was read. This report is impor- 
tant for it marks the first beginning of a coalition between the 
University and Adolphe Theirs, now become the new leader of 
the Republican party. Furthermore, it was a readjustment of 
his political creed to meet a new situation and it predicts his 
policy for the year 1845. 

"What will result, gentlemen, from this struggle? Nothmg 
but the triumph of Reason, if you know how to be patient and 
persevere. The Church is a great, an august power, but she 
has not exerted herself to have the right on her side in this 
case. In former times she has triumphed over persecution ; 
that is true, and ought to be to the honour of humanity. She 

*' Another paper, more reasonable and yet really of the opposition, 
saw the entire afifair in another light. The contrast is curious : "Nous 
comprenons et nous admettons qu'on exclue de la France I'ordre des 
Jesuites. Cest ta dire que Ton I'empeche de etablir, d'acquerir, de pos- 
seder des membres ; mais qu'on descend dans la conscience de tous les 
citoyens, qu'on sonde inquisitorialement leur vie privee, leurs sentiments 
intimes et qu'on les force a declarer et a signer, pour avoir la faculte 
d'instruire la jeunesse, qu'ils appartiennent nia I'ordre des Jesuites, ni 
a aucune ordre prohibe, par les lois, voila, qui est monstrueux autant 
qu'insense; voila qui choque les idees les plus elementaires, voila qui 
ferait reculer la France et toutes les conquetes morales de deux siecles ; 
voila qui retablirait ce que I'esprit d'intolerance a jamais montres de 
plus etroit, de plus tyrannique et de plus vexatoire; viola ce qui met- 
trait veritablement le gouvernement de Juillet en danger. Oui, excluez, 
tant qu'il vous plaira I'ordre des Jesuites, mais n'excluez pas la liberte," 
Le Globe, 10 Mai 1844. 

132 



will not, however, triumph over Reason calm and respectful but 
inflexible." 

All this discussion was to come to nothing and the progress 
of events was interrupted by a calamity. The "Universitaires" 
had found in Thiers a leader ; they were to need him badly, for 
Villemain was slowly becoming the victim of a mental disease. 
In December insanity seized upon him, and Guizot appointed 
in his place de Salvandy, a man more in sympathy with the 
"Neo-Catholic" demands. Out of respect to Villemain and his 
affliction a sort of armed truce ensued for the remaining few 
weeks of the year 1844. 

What an evolution had this young and ardent group of 
Romanticists, the "parti catholique" experienced in the brief 
space of four years.*^ Beginning as simple religious teachers 
they had become a real factor in parliamentary affairs. So 
great, in fact, had been their progress that the men of the 
opposition had had to resort to the policy of persecuting them. 
This, in turn, had resulted to the glory and increase of the 
persecuted, instead of to the advantage of their persecutors. 
Even the government, misjudging them as harmless, had 
brought them forward as a happy distraction from other 
dangers, betrayed them, and then found their distraction 
become an equally serious menace. Placed between this men- 
ace and the danger of Communism, the government had first 
attempted to conciliate, then failing this, to lavish its praises 
upon the one and then the other. This, too, met with slight 
success. In the meantime the opposition had presented the 
Jesuit protest ; this seemed to have served as a fair distraction 
and might have succeeded had it been handled more carefully, 
had its agitators been less fanatical than their opponents. The 
Ministry was not slow to perceive this possibility, and now, 
in turn, they seemed to have resolved to seize upon the Jesuit 
question, and, strange paradox, they believed that they could 
make it a means of conciliation. By appealing to Rome they 
planned to dissolve the order in France, that would conciliate 
the opposition, and then, the Jesuits out of the way, they 

** "Ce que nous avons gagne dans cette derniere campagne, en verite, 
en force, en avenir est a peine croyable. . . . Je ne crois pas que y_ London 
I'histoire presente une aussi surprenante peripetie." Lettres Lacor- Times, 
daire, i Juin 1844. Dec. 17, 1844 

133 



would try to submit a law satisfactory to the "Neo-Catholics." 
So it was that his minister of public instruction become insane, 
Guizot, the minister of foreign affairs, by the appointment of 
de Salvandy, a man whom he knew could control, brought the 
question of liberty of instruction into his own department and 
determined to settle it himself by a policy of conciliation and 
mutual concessions at home, made possible through diplomacy 
at Rome. The Ancona affair was to be reacted in another 
sphere, but after all, in the same sense, Guizot was to deceive 
and then, in turn, be himself bitterly deceived. This new 
policy will be considered in the next chapter. 



134 



CHAPTER VI 

THE VICTORY OF THE "NEO-CATHOLICS." 
THE FALL OF THE JULY MONARCHY 

In the last few years of the reign of Louis Philippe that 
state of apathy and political indifference remarked at the be- 
ginning of Quizot's administration (1840) became the 
dominant characteristic of the French nation. Its cause, it 
will be remembered, was found in the failure of the July 
Monarchy to fulfill the hopes and ambitions of its originators, 
and the consequent reign of selfish interests. But this fact 
alone could not account for the political indifference France 
displayed at that time. The mere statement that the bour- 
geoisie had lost interest and were disappointed is not sufficient. 
They did not even make the slightest attempt to force the 
government to carry out their wishes, and there were several 
reasons to account for this. In the first place they did not 
know how to compel the Monarchy to follow the line of 
conduct they desired, and, too, they had refused all help 
offered them. 

At the beginning of the July Revolution the bourgeoisie had 
found themselves for the first time in power and they were 
hopelessly inexperienced. Neither the Revolution with its 
heroes of a day, the Empire with its dearly bought victories, 
nor the Restoration, had given them any opportunity to take 
lessons in the art of governing a people. They had come 
to the front, then, in 1830, entirely without experience or 
practice, claiming to uphold vague principles of Constitutional 
government, but, untutored as they were in the practice of y Thureau 
those principles, they had found the load upon their hands Dangin, 
far too heavy. Other men were well versed in politics but the 4Q.52 ' 
stolid bourgeois did not appeal to them. They distrusted the 
nobles, the only class who had had much experience in gov- 
erning. In this distrust they were wrong. The old nobility 

135 



was fast disappearing, and among the younger generation 
there were many who could have helped them, and if they 
had confided in them, they would not have abused that confi- 
dence. Liberal Romanticism had, as has been seen, claimed 
many adherents among the younger nobility who pos- 
sessed those very elements of chivalry, heroism and generosity 
which the average bourgeois lacked and yet so direly needed. 
Among the younger aristocracy, then, there was much ma- 
terial which would have been useful, but the bourgeoisie, 
blind in its own jealousy, did not perceive the good and 
saw only an evil that was slowly being eradicated. Had 
they but realized their own short sightedness in time, it might 
have been their salvation, but, as it was, selfish interests 
reigned more completely than ever. It was only among 
the members of Parliament then, that real political interest 
existed.^ These parliamentarians were scattered among a 
number of groups ; the "Neo-Catholics" with their pro- 
gramme of liberty of instruction, the Republicans with 
such questions as the supremacy of the University and 
Electoral Reform — so soon to be made a more serious ques- 
tion by Lamartine's inauguration of "Reform Banquets;" the 
Extreme Left constantly advocating Socialism, Communism 
and the Right of the Individual, and finally, the Government 
with its few supporters interested in a personal policy of 
saving their own necks. The greatest agitation, however, 
continued to center around the "Neo-Catholics" and their de- 
mand for liberty of teaching and of religion — a controversy 
V rUnivers ^^^^ ^^^ opposition had frequently sought to cloak with the 

13 Fevr., Jesuit question. 

et nos seq After the fatal illness of Villemain there ensued for a time 

also a sort of armed truce. During this brief period of calm Dupin 

lembert (confrere of Odilon-Barrot) published his famous "Manuel 

Discours, du droit publique ecclesiastique," an indirect assault on all 

1841;^' ultramontane theses and an attempt to arouse what the author 

believed would prove a salutatory reaction to Gallicanism. 

^ "Le publique ne s'occupe que de ses speculations, de ses affaires. 
II n'a pas de gout en ce moment pour la politique il s'en defie; il 
craint en etre derange. II a eu ainsi des engouements successifs; 
sous I'Empire, les bulletins de'l Armee, sous la Restauration la liberte, 
aujourd'hui c'est la Richesse." Rossi, Revue des deux Mondes 1842. 

136 



This effort, ably combated in L'Univers by de Bonald, Arch- 
bishop of Lyons, failed. Another event of importance was the 
definite nomination of Salvandy as Minister of Public Instruc- 
tion. The appointment of an ally of Dupin and Saint-Marc 
Girardin did not in itself offer too promising a prospect to the 
"Neo-Catholics," but Salvandy was more kindly disposed than 
Villemain. A belief in the church and its share in affairs, as 
a political necessity was not a brief in religion for religion's 
sake, but it was better than intolerance and vague protestation. 
It was soon realized, however, that the new Minister would 
play a minor and very inconspicuous part in the settlement of 
the question that so vitally concerned his department; for it 
was not long before it escaped the confines of the province of 
instruction and was carried into the realms of diplomacy. 
The Jesuit question was revived. 

In reality, the Jesuit protest had never ceased, but had con- 
tinued active under the surface from the time of its first en- 
trance into politics. The Journal des Debats still declaimed 
that their presence in France was contrary to the law, while 
the C onstitutionnel continued to publish regularly a chapter of 
"Le Juif Errant," by Eugene Sue. In 1845 ^^^ that was nec- 
essary to revive the question was an event attracting public 
attention. This was offered in the "Affaire Affnaer," an in- 
cident unimportant enough, but destined to become the occa- 
sion for the reappearance and final "solution" of the agitation. 
A former Jesuit named Affnaer, had been the economat (man- 
ager and treasurer) of one of the Jesuit establishments in 
France. He had stolen, he had been expelled, and now, to 
avenge himself upon the order which had ruined his reputation 
and published his shame, he took advantage of the prejudice 
against that body to air his complaints, recounted with all the 
black details of a Reformer of the Sixteenth Century. His 
cause was taken up at once by the Republicans, and the matter 
did not remain long outside the Debates of the Chamber. On 
April 14, Cousin taking occasion to speak of the "Affaire Aff- 
naer" before the Chamber of Peers demanded that the govern- 
ment put into immediate execution the existing laws prohibiting 
the establishment of the Company of Jesus in France. Im- 
mediately the Republican papers circulated petitions upholding 



Le Siecle, 
Fev., 1845 



I'Univers, 

12 Avril, 

1845 



C onsti- 
tutionnel, 
II, Avril, 
1845 



National, 

12 Avil, 

1845 



137 



Journal des 

Debats, 15 
Avril, 1845 



Natioival, 

IS Avril, 

1845 



V. Carica- 
ture, by 
A. Gill, 
"La Carica- 
ture Fran- 
gaise au 
XIX 
Sieclje," pu- 
blic par. 
Armand 
Dayot 



Cousin's demand. The Opposition through the Journal des 
Debats, asked: 

"Why, in this question of the Jesuits, do they not enforce 
the laws concerning "congregations d'hommes and if the 
Order is good and worthy to be saved, do they not enforce 
the laws concerning "congregations d'hommes" and ask the 
Chambers to authorize the Jesuits' rights in France? We are 
of the opinion ourselves that one or the other of these two 
laws must be enforced while waiting for M. de Montalembert 
to successfully proclaim "la liberte illimitee de toute chose." 

To such protests the government, through M. Martin (du 
Nord) replied: "I have already said that several associations 
are tolerated in France. The duty of the government is to 
discern and wait. It would never do to provoke the clergy to 
angry protests." 

The government and Guizot must have been in very hard 
straits indeed, when they could make no better answer to the 
demands of the people they were supposed to serve. Guizot 
saw that he could not defend the Jesuits without serious danger 
to the dynasty, but he must defend religious liberty. This was 
the problem confronting the Ministry, and while it was deter- 
mining on a plan of solution, the opposition were putting the 
final touches to their scheme of assault. 

This time the Jesuit Question was revived in the Chamber 
of Deputies and Thiers was the principal agitator. From the 
very outset, however, an important fact should be borne in 
mind. Thiers, as leader of the Republicans, had become a 
sponsor for the cause of the University, but in all probability 
he was not fighting this fight for a great moral principle. In 
fact, his own actions do not permit the acceptance of any such 
idea. Undoubtedly there were other interests far more vital 
to the political future of the "Oiseau sur la Branche." Thiers 
had foreseen the inevitable end of the government, but it was 
not to be for him the end; he was determined that his own 
political life should not be shortened by any possible fatality 
to the dynasty. As leader of both oppositions he felt he had 
a career to fight for, and the Jesuit question became in his eyes, 
a mere political hobby-horse on which he hoped to ride into 
the Cabinet, from which he had resigned, and wrest the 



138 



\ 



immmt^mmmiiwm 



J 



portfolio from Guizot. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, on 
the other hand, was well aware of the intention of his adver- 
sary, and realized that the policy either of favori^ig or sup- 
pressing the Jesuits would be a victory for Thiers and, in 
either event, would lead to his own resignation. Guizot, then, 
saw only one possible escape open to him — a recourse to Rome. 

In the meantime, Thiers had roused the Deputies. On the 
2nd of May, 1845, he made his famous interpellation on the 
legality of the position of the Jesuits in France and the danger 
to the country. Posing as an apostle of the new era and a 
believer in what he termed "the modern spirit" he traced the 
history of the Jesuits in France from the very beginning, and ^ ^ ^^ 
showed how they had interfered in the aiifairs of State in past 118-9 
time. Basing his complaint upon the early laws of the Revo- 
lution, the Ordonnances of 1812 and 1825, and the July Or- 
donnance of Charles X in the year 1828, he then criticised the 
attitude of M. Martin (du Nord) and de Salvandy. His tac- 
tics were clever, at some points in the interpellation he did 
not fail to pose as a moderate. Could it be believed that this 
attack was entirely sincere it would be an admirable piece of 
work, but it is well to have in mind Thiers' policy and words 
at a later epoch when reading the following citation from his 
speech : 

"As for me, I am convinced that by far the majority of the 
French clergy is animated with a good spirit, with respect for 
the laws of the country, and that it is faithful to the State. 
But I also believe that there is a faction among them that Is 
compromising the clergy in the eyes of the government. It is 
just the same thing as existed at the time of the institution of 
the Concordat when a part of the clergy did not recognize the 
Concordat. This faction was still living during the Restoration, 
and it exists today. 

"Where will we find this faction? I will speak frankly; I Speech of 
believe that the first impulse has come from the Jesuits. ^^^^ Cham- 

"I will not recall, gentlemen, all that has been said about ber of Dep- 
the Order of Jesuits; I am fair-minded; I do not believe m Jg^^ 
all the popular prejudices existing against this famous com- I'Uniyers, 
munity ; things have changed since two centuries ago, and they ^ Constitu- 
must indeed have been in a most unhappy condition not to tionnel, 

139 



have changed. Today, however, the Jesuits are become the 

refuge whither go restless and ardent souls that they may find 

there the force of association. At every period there has been 

a moderate and also an exaggerated spirit."^ 

Thiers' efforts enjoyed immediate success, and the following 

day the Chambers voted the famous "ordre du jour" of May 3, 

appointing a bureau to draw up a law against the Jesuits. A 
3 Mai 1846 ^ . ^ , . , , , . . ^, . . 

V. also S^eat victory was acclaimed by the opposition; Thiers paper 

24 Mai, 184s declared: "L'opposition avait fait une fois de plus I'office du 

gouvernement." 

The question arises, however, whether after all, Thiers had 
Journal des ^ r ■,■ ■ ^ , 

Debats, ^^^ ^^^ political purposes made a mountain out of a mole hill, 

5 Mai, 1845 It would have been impossible for the Jesuits so recently re- 
turned and living under such restricted conditions, to have 
become a real menace to the government. There were some 
who had not lost their heads and who realized this fact.^ 
Moreover, the party of "Neo-Catholics," those really attacked, 
did not fail to see that the Jesuit agitation and the question of 
public instruction were being used by the opposition as a poli- 
tical club to drive out Guizot. They, in their turn, uttered a 
rather serious warning: 

"Saturday's vote has caused the Journal des Debats some 
anxiety; they fear that M. Thiers is trying to make it a 
weapon against the Ministry, and they devote the first part of 
their article to explaining that 'this vote is rather a mark of 
confidence than blam^ for the government.' The Constitution- 
nel on the other hand, tries to prove that all the glory of that 

6^Mar^i84- ^^^ should go to their patron. It is evident that the anti- 

*It is interesting to note that de Ravignan and Dupanloup were in 
the gallery of the Chamber on the 2nd and 3rd of May. de Pont 
levoy Vie du P. de Ravignan. I, 313. 

* "En 184s, sous le regime de la liberte de la presse, a la clarte d'un 
firmament de journaux, declarera-t-on sans rougir, qu'il n'y aura 
plus d'associations autorisees se proposant un but de bienfaisance 
ou de moralisation, que celles qu'il sera bien demontre que la religion 
n'a aucune part, et si Ton recule devant une pareille monstruosite, 
devant un tel anachronisme, dedlarera-t-on sans rire que I'existence 
de trois ou quatre cents Jesuites vivant dessimines dans 27 maisons est 
un danger qui menace le 19^ siecle et 34,000,000 d'habitants, les liberies 
publiques et le progres des idees, la tranquilite de I'Etat et le repos 
des families." La Presse, S Mai 1845. 

140 



religious furor of these two sheets does not prevent them from 

looking to their "interets de boutiques." For that matter, both 

are right. In fact, it was in the hope of grabbing the power 

that Thiers raised the question of religious communities, and it L'Univers 

was in order that they might keep their portfolios a few weeks Speech of de 

longer that our Ministers have so promptly sacrificed religious Tocqueville 

cli of Peers 
liberty. That is how the government is run today. Are you j- Janv. 

still surprised that a government that exists and legislates in 

such a manner, is without force and without definiteness ?" 

Seeing no help in prospect from the government, the Jesuits 
were preparing a legal battle for their existence in France, by 
basing their claims on the Article in the Charter allowing asso- 
ciations, and in maintaining that the acceptance of a charter 
which contained this article annulled all past legislation. Cer- v. de Pont- 
tainly they had the law on their side. In fact what proofs but ^^ ' 
the slanderous and scandalous reports of their adversaries can 
be found against them? The use of slander and scandal often 
implies the lack of reliable statements and well-founded 
charges. Of the latter, after a diligent search, not the slightest 
evidence has been found for the entire period of the July 
Monarchy, and it is impossible to admit as proof of their 
evil at this time, a reference to a reputation in the past mani- 
festly of an unsavory nature. 

But the government had not been so inactive as the two 

adversaries had imagined. In fact, while Thiers had been 

occupied in publicly berating the Order and the weakness of a 

government which would tolerate its establishment, Guizot had ^^^^i^o^^' 

• 1- , XT- 1 • r • 1 E et E, 466, 

set a curious counter policy to work. His adoption of it be- 467 

trays his entire ignorance of the laws and usages of the Roman Thureau 

Communion. It had not been easy, however, for Guizot to in- g et E, 

augurate this last desperate attempt, for, from the very outset 409-410 

he has been hampered by the king's words : "Do not deceive 

yourselves, I will not risk my crown for the Jesuits." These 

words did not serve to help, but rather embarrassed Guizot's 

poHcy. He desired to defend the liberty of the Jesuits, but 

not the Jesuits for themselves, for having in mind the fall of 

Charles X, he feared for the July Monarchy in any case.* 

* Apropos of this fear Thureau Dangin (E et E 391) remarks: "O 
brievete de la sagesse politique quand elle pretend discerner ce qui 

141 



Accordingly after the unsuccessful effort to force the bishops 
to intervene, Guizot, sent M. Pellegrino Rossi, an Italian who 
possessed a reputation not agreeable to the Apostolic See, 
to lay the entire matter before the Pope and persuade him to 
dissolve the Jesuit Order in France !^ When Thiers, then, made 
his interpellation thereby rendering necessary some reply from 
the government, Guizot shortly afterwards was able to an- 
nounce that the government already had under way a plan of 
solution and that M, Rossi would present in the course of the 
month, a memorandum to Cardinal Lambruschini. Such was 
the escape Guizot had planned for the government and for 
himself. Under such circumstances and with such selfish inter- 
ests in view it was just as well that he should have selected a* 
man of Rossi's calibre who possessed a reputation for extreme 
liberal sentiments, and who certainly was not over-impressed 
with the virtue or necessity of the "Neo-Catholic" demands,* 

perd et ce qui sauve les gouvernements ! On jetait des religieux 
pardessus bord pour alleger le navire qui portait la fortune de la 
Monarchic ; et quand peu apres soufflera la tourmente ce sera ce grand 
et beau navire que sombrera, tandisque la petite barque des jesuites 
arrivera au port; la revolution qui jettera la famille d'Orleans en 
exile, fera disparaitre les derniers vestiges de proscription pesant sur 
la compagnie de Jesus, et M. Thiers lui-meme proclamera, devant le 
pays cette sorte d'emancipation." 

'Apropos of the character of M. Rossi there are various reports 
but all seem to agree that he vi^as of a type not too acceptable for the 
time at least, to the Pope. The Jesuits' opinion of him is as follows : 
"M. Rossi etait un de ces conditierri de Tintelligence qui n'ont d'autre 
patrie que le lieu 6u il leur est permis d'abriter la fortune sous leur 
tente." J. Cretineau-Joly, "Hist, de la Compagnie de Jesus," IV, 392, 

Guizot says of Rossi : "An Italian, avowedly liberal, and a refugee 
from Italy on account of his liberal opinions, the embassy of Rossi 
could not fail to startle, I will even say to alarm, the Court of Rome; 
but there are salutary alarms, and I knew M. Rossi to be extremely 
well adapted to calm those he might inspire ; and at the same time to 
turn them to account for the success of his mission. His liberal con- 
victions were deeply rooted, but expanded and untainted by any 
spirit of system or party; his mind was extremely free, though not 
fluctuating, and no one more capable of seeing persons and things 
in their true light, and of restraining his daily actions within the 
limits of what was practicable without ceasing the constant pursuit 
of his object." Guizot, France under Louis Philippe. Chap. V. 363. 

*It has been asserted that Rossi even warned the Pope to beware 

142 



Despite all this evidence, Guizot's language when explaining 
his action is not indicative of any ulterior motives he may have 
entertained at this time : 

"I proposed to the King and Council not to abandon the 
laws in vigour against religious communities, and to carry the 
question of the dissolution of the Society of Jesus in France 
to its supreme and uncontested Chief, to the Pope himself. 
The Civil French Power did not thus renounce the legal arms 
with which it was provided ; but, in the interest of religious 
peace, as also of religious influence and liberty in France, it 
invited the spiritual power of the Catholic church to relieve it 
from its exercise. The King and Council adopted my 
proposition."'^ 

The general tendency, however, was to ridicule this resort 
to diplomacy inaugurated by Guizot, and neither the "Neo- 
Catholics" nor their opponents expected any result at all from 
Rossi's mission. Montalembert, now the acknowledged and 
undoubted leader of the "Neo-Catholic Movement" — as its de- 
tractors continued to call it — felt, therefore that it would be 
advisable to bring the Jesuit matter up before the Chamber of 
Peers, and in that way demonstrate to the political world that 
his party did not rely, by any means, on Guizot's policy. Ac- 
cordingly, on the i2th of June, Montalembert, seconded by 
Beugnot, laid the question before the High Chamber by inter- 
rogating M. Martin (du Nord). He used this occasion to 
deliver an eloquent defense of the Jesuits as well as to show 
the government that the "Neo-Catholics" were aware that the 



Guizot : 

"France 

under 

Louis 

Philippe, 

362 



of the "Neo-Catholics" and their friends the Jesuits, who were 
nothing else than "la coda di La Mennais." Thureau-Dangin., 411, 
E et E. 

' It is a curious fact to note that even de Ravignan seemed to have 
at first a certain amount of faith in Guizot. At the time of the first 
agitation he had remarked : "II m'a etonnee par la superiorite de ses 
vues; par son estime pour la compagnie, par la maniere dont il se 
pronongait contre toutes les preventions et les attaques aux quelles 
nos sommes en lutte. Je sais positivement que, dans le conseil des 
ministries, il a parle en notre faveur. . . . Je ne me confierai sans doute 
qu'avec mesure a sa politique et a ses opinions, mais il merite cependant 
plus d'estime que la plupart des nos gouvernants." Lettre, 29 December 
1843. Pontlevoy Vie de Ravignan I, 338. 



143 



Dep. off 

Rossi a 

Guizot, 23 

Juin, 1845 



Guizot, 

"France 

under 

L. P,." 409 



Messager 

des Chatn- 

bres, 5 Juil- 

let, 1845 

Journal des 

Dehats, 

6 Juillet, 

1845 



entire agitation was a mere struggle to keep their portfolios.® 
In addition to showing the government that people were not 
blind to their infidelity, this speech had the result of hastening 
the negotiations at Rome. Montalembert had so routed M. 
Martin (du Nord) that the government felt they could no 
longer maintain their dignity without an immediate reply from 
the Pope.® Acting on instructions, received from Guizot, there- 
fore, Rossi became more urgent in his demands, and Lambrus- 
chini is said finally to have assured Rossi that the order of the 
Jesuits in France would be dispersed; its novitiates dissolved, 
and a few ecclesiastics who should exercise only the functions 
of priests should remain in the establishment as caretakers. 
But Guizot did not think this assurance binding enough, and he 
instructed Rossi to ask that this promise be presented in writ- 
ing to the French government. 

The rest of the story, according to Guizot is as follows: 
In the meantime Lambruschini had retracted slightly, the Pope 
had found his Council unfavorable, and the Cardinal demanded 
that the Jesuits "have the honour of acquiescence." Father 
Roothan, general of the Order, then reluctantly transmitted his 
injunctions to de Ravignan in France. Guizot now thought 
himself justified in allowing the following notice to appear in 
the official newspapers : 

"Le gouvernement du Roi a regu des nouvelles de Rome. 
La negotiation dont il avait charge M. Rossi a attteint son but. 
La Congregation des Jesuites cessera d'exister en France et va 

*"When you have behind you, among the great statesmen of past 
time Henri IV, and among the kings of today the wise and enlightened 
Leopold, when you have behind you, in the spiritual world, the sov- 
ereign authority of the church, you can await with confidence the 
judgment of posterity and console yourself for having been denounced 
by the Ministry of the first of March and betrayed by the Cabinet of 
October 29 to passions far less powerful and less furious against 
religion than against order, the throne and society as a whole." (Quoted 
in I'Univers, 12 Juin 1845.) 

° "M. de Montalembert a ete plus heureux dans ses attaques contre 
M. Martin (du Nord). II a mis dans tout son jour la conduite equi- 
voque et incertaine du gouvernement, tiraille sans cesse entre la crainte 
du clerge et la peur de la chambre, et le ridicule d'une mission diplo- 
matique avortie avant meme d'etre commencee." Constitutionnel, 
12 Juin 1845. 



144 



se disperser d'elle-meme ; ses maisons seront fermees et ses 
noviciats dissous." 

Thus the French government proclaimed itself victorious 
without a scrap of paper except the letters of Rossi to prove 
their victory.^" 

For a moment the "Neo-Catholics" who had taken up the 
cause of the Jesuits, beHeved themselves lost. They were even 
astonished at what appeared to be the action of the Vatican, 
for they had received the impression from their correspondent 
at Rome that the entire affair was going in the opposite di- 
rection and that Rossi was failing in his mission. ^^ Further- 
more, the opposition had shared in the impression of the "Neo- 
Catholics" and even after July 6 were not inclined to credit 
the official note of the government inserted in the Moniteur}^ 
In this, the opponents of the government displayed extraordin- 
ary clear-sightedness. The sorrow of the "Neo-Catholics" 
was not to be of long duration, the doubts of the opposition 
were soon to be confirmed. For on the 7th of July the fol- 
lowing editorial appeared in one of the morning papers : 

"Letters from Rome dated the 28th and 29th of May have 
reached us. They contradict the notice inserted yesterday In 
the Messager and this morning in the Moniteur. This notice 
is based on a scandalous equivocation. Concessions were made, 
it is true, but not at all of the nature intimated by the official 
announcement. It is of prime importance to note that these 
concessions do not emanate from the venerable authority 
which they had wished to identify with M. Guizot's policy. 
In brief, the honour and right of the Holy See are safe, and 



National, 

7 Juillet, 

1845 



Quoti- 

dienne, 

7 Juillet, 

1845 



" I have teen unable to find any other official documents on this 
subject except the notes of Rossi to Guizot. 

"v. I'Univers, i Juillet 1845. When the official announcement ap- 
peared, I'Univers expressed some surprise and remarked. "Cette 
nouvelle qu'aucune lettre de Rome nous avait laisse prevoir, brise nos 
coeurs, rein ne peut ebranler notre foi; si Rome I'ordonne, les 
Jesuites se soumettront. L'Eglise de France luttera sans eux comme 
elle a lutte pour eux. Leur depart n'enleve rien a ses droits, il ajoute 
a ses devoirs." L'Univers, 6 Juillet 1845. 

" "II reste toujours a demander compte au ministere en supposant 
que cette nouvelle se verifie, de la dignite nationale dans une negocia- 
tion pareille." La Reforme, 6 Juillet 1845. 



. Conslitu- 

tionnel, 

6 Juillet, 

1845 



145 



14 Juin, 

1845 

Pontlevoy, 

I, 349 



21 Juin, 
Pontlevoy, 



the plot framed by the government will result to its own shame 
and to its own detriment." 

It was, as this paper had declared, and as the "Neo-Catho- 
lics" themselves soon perceived,'^ an utter deception on the 
part of the government. There are four witnesses substan- 
tiating this opinion ; two official letters from the General of the 
Company of Jesus to the provincial in France, a letter of Rossi 
to Guizot, a letter of the Papal Secretary to the Apostolic Le- 
gate in Paris, and finally the subsequent actions of the Jesuits 
themselves, all of whom are bound to obey explicitly the orders 
of their General. These documents, then, prove two facts, 
first that the order came from the superior of the Jesuits and 
not from the Pope as Guizot had desired, and also that the 
official notice of the government published in the Moniteur and 
Messager exaggerated the facts. 

On June 14, while the negotiations were still in progress, 
de Roothan had written a letter to de Ravignan, the provin- 
cial, and in this letter he remarks : 

"It is hard for me to give such an order, but I believe it is 
my duty to advise this measure of prudence. I hope it 
will be done quietly, and as I have told you, without any 
show ; this is much better from every point of view than if it 
should take place later with trouble and tumult." 

From this letter, then, it may be assumed that it was 
Roothan who gave the orders and not the Pope. On the 
2 1 St of January he wrote another letter to de Ravignan 
directing him to dissolve entirely or in part according to his 
better judgment, three houses, the establishment at Saint- 
Acheul and several novitiates. He adds : 

"Nous devons tacher de nous effacer un peu, et expier ainsi 
la trop grande confiance que nous avons eue dans la charte et 
qui ne se trouve que la." 

*'"La note publiee par le Messager, a pu, grace a I'ambiguite de sa 
redaction, faire croire des choses qu'elle ne dit pas. Le but de M Rossi 
a ete atteint en ce sens que les Jesuites frangais peuvent, sur 
I'avis de leur general, renoncer a I'usage d'une partie de leur droits 
■de citoyens ne pas plaider, se disperser meme, il n'importe, mais le 
ministre semblait annoncer une inter-vention du Saint Siege; tout 
le monde y a ete trompe, et nous I'avons cru nous-memes." L'Univers, 
8 Juillet 1845. 

146 



There is only one possible letter from Rossi on which the 
official notice of July 5th and 6th could have been modeled, 
and then only by an inexact interpretation : 

"The purpose of our negotiation has been reached. . . . The 
Congregation will disperse of its own accord, the novitiates 
will be dissolved, and only those ecclesiastics necessary to Q^f^o^^ 
take care of their property will remain, while they, in turn, 23 Juin, 1845 
will live as ordinary priests." 

A comparison will show that the official note inserted in 
the Moniteur and Messager does not correspond exactly 
with the letter quoted. 

The third corroboration is still more definite, the letter of 
the Papal Secretary to the Legate at Paris. 

"Now as far as the question of what steps to take is con- 
cerned, I tell you that there never was any intention that the 
Jesuits should close their houses or that their property should 
be confiscated. After reading the Ministerial note (inserted 
in the papers) I protested to M. Rossi and he declared most 
emphatically that he had not written it. Furthermore, people . ^^^j. 
who ought to know declared that M. Rossi has informed in- 1845 
directly the Rev. Fr. General of the Jesuits that he ought i'"324-5^' 
not to interpret the words literally. 

Your Excellency may, therefore, tell the Jesuits in the 
guise of advice, to adhere strictly to whatever their Fr. 
General tells them to do, but they are by no means obliged 
to exceed the instructions of their superior."^* 

By far the most convincing evidence of the real under- 
standing between Rome and the July Monarchy, however, is 
found in the subsequent actions of the Jesuits. Three houses 
at Paris, Lyons and Avignon, were closed. Two novitiate 
houses were abandoned — one at Saint-Acheul, the other at 
Laval. This action corresponds exactly with the instructions 
issued to the provincial, and as the government did not publicly 
accuse the Jesuits of failing to fulfill the whole of their con- 
tract, it seems that these injunctions must have been the sole and 

" Debidour E et E 69. Quotes a letter from Rozaven to Ravignan 
dated June 25, 1845, in which the above statement are confirmed. I 
have not, however, been able to find any trace or mention of this letter 
elsewhere, so refrain from using it. 

147 



only agreement made between Guizot and the Jesuits through 
Rossi, not an agreement with Gregory XVI personally. 

The question of the understanding between these two courts 
settled, another query arises. Why had Rome advised the 
Jesuits to yield at all? This time the cause lay not so much 
in foreign influence as in the unsettled condition of the Italian 

^™- Barry, clergy. The aged Pope was failing, and at the very moment 
of Thiers' interpollation the ideas of the "New Guelf" were 
becoming dominant. Led by such men as Gioberti and Cesare 
Balbo they sought to place a "Lamennasian Pope" in St. 
Peter's chair. This new party did not favour the Jesuits 
and their theories ; they were also the enemies of all despotic 
and semi-despotic governments, and so they opposed Austria 
and France. Their influence is said to have been exerted 
against both Guizot's policy and the Jesuit order. So much 
for a possible explanation of Rome's action. 

How, then, had Guizot fared in France after the Jesuit 
fiasco? Among the people there was general dissatisfaction, 
and out of this unhappy condition appeared the first sign 
of a rapprochement of the "Neo-Catholics" and the Moderate 
Republicans; both demanded an explanation in the Chamber 
of Peers. It remained for Guizot to defend a defenceless 
policy. On the 15th of July Guizot pleaded his cause, main- 
taining that his policy had been the wisest and most prudent 
in extremely delicate circumstances. Montalembert contra- 

er, I, p. 434 dieted him in no dubious terms and tore aside the veil with 
which Guizot had attempted to hide the real import of the 
affair. He again established the original bases of the struggle.^^ 
Thus in the middle of the year 1845 the Premier found him- 
self confronted with the same question he had tried so hard 
Thureau 

Dangin, " "J'ai besoin a vous dire que toute la question n'est pas la, qu'il y a 

Hist., dans les lettres, qui ont ete portees si souvent a cette tribune et ailleurs, 

' ^^ depuis quelques annees, tout autre chose que la question des Jesuites. 
Lorsque M. le Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres disait tout a I'heure 
que maintenant le clerge ne courait plus risque de prendre la ques- 
tion des Jesuites pour la sienne, il a oublie que le clerge avait deja sa 
question, et non seulement le clerge mais encore tous les catholiques, 
tous les hommes religieux de France etaient occupes d'une question 
qui survivra a celle des Jesuits, comme elle I'a precedee, c'est a dire la 
question de la liberte religieuse et de la liberte de I'enseignement." 
Montalembert's words, 15 July, L'Univers, 16 Juillet 1845. 

148 



to avoid and had attempted to divert into another channel. 

He was indeed in an embarrassing position; other questions, 

of an economic nature were pressing, and to avoid these 

he could not yet settle the matter nor discontinue the fight, "^i ^'^V?\ ^^ 

. rr^i u-\7 ^^ Religion 

The question, then, returned to its old basis. The Neo- et du Roi, 6 

Catholics" resumed their former activities and the Committee Aout, 1845 
for the Defense of Religious Liberty was enlarged. Mon- 
talembert remained, of course, the President, while M. 
Vatesminel, minister of Public Instruction under Charles X, 
was elected vice-president and M. Henri de Riancey secre- 
tary. The Committee now counted among its members such 
men as the Marquis de Barthelemy, Amedee Thayer and M. 
Clappier ; these names are significant as they were all members 
of the Chambers. In August Montalembert issued his famous 
charge to the electors of France and the opposition replied 
by an attempt to prove the action of the Committee seditious. 
But, this effort met with little success.^'' It is interesting to 
note in passing, that at this time the "Neo-Catholics" were 
confronted with an enemy long recognized as such, but here- 
tofore silent. These were the old GalHcans under the leader- 
ship of Ami de la Religion et du roi who seemed to regret 
the fame and honour gained by their more progressive brothers 
in the Faith, and condoned the activity of the Committee. 
Among their own number, too, the "Neo-Catholics" began to 
find some who believed that the new school had fought hard 
and long enough. One of this number was Frederic Ozanam, I- ^zanam, 
while still another was Mgr. Dupanloup of Orleans, who, at 83 

this time, published his book "De la Pacification Rehgieuse.'' 
Both of these men found their group of sympathizers. But, 
to have given up now, would have been to lose the struggle 
at the very moment when they were nearest their goal, and, 
happily, Montalembert and his party realized this fact. Never- 

'" "On sait ce que les Neo-Catholiques entendent par la liberte religi- 
euse c'est particulierement, en attendant mieux la destruction de I'Uni- 
versite, qu'ils apellent le monopole, I'accroissement des privileges dont 
jouissent deja les petits seminaires, la multiplication indefinie des col- 
leges ecclesiastiques jouissant d'une liberte sans autre limite que celle 
qui peut venir la police correctionnelle, c'est ainsi I'abolition des articles 
du concordat qu'empechent que I'Eglise devienne un Etat dans I'Etat." 
Constitutionnel, S Aovit 1845. 

149 



theless a sort of truce did ensue for the rest of the year. 
In this brief interval several important changes occurred, 
Louis Veuillot retired from rUnivers and was succeeded by 
de Coux whose name had frequently appeared in the early 
columns of I'Avenir. The government, too seemed desirous of 
peace, and as if to prove the sincerity of their desire, 
Salvandy suspended Quinet's course at the College de 
France. Montalembert's party, however, could not long re- 
main inactive, and at the end of a year they were arranging 
their cohorts for a final struggle. At the closing of the 
Chambers their leader declared: "We await you next year 
on the same ground."^'' 

The year 1846, however, witnessed a renewal of the con- 
troversy, and many of those who had declared for peace 
re-entered the field. It was a significant year for the nation 
and for the "Neo-Catholics" as well ; France broke with Eng- 
land and by that act definitely asserted her return to the 
principles of Metternich and the Holy AUiance, while the 
"Neo-Catholics" won the last step in their triumphant pro- 
gress, a step which, in fact, predicted and assured the victory. 
The prize was won in 1846, but for the reward they had to 
wait till the beginning of 1850, when the prize was presented 

Courier to them by the leader of their opponents. 
Fr3.nc3.is 
2 Fevrier From December of the preceding year Montalembert's party 

1846 had seen that they would be called on to the field of political 

controversy at an early date. In that month Salvandy had 

r proposed his law calling for a reorganization of the "Conseil 
V. Speech of ^^ ,„ . , ^.^ . . ^^ . . , ,- . 

Monta- Koyal 01 the University. Here, some thought, was a definite 

lembert, overture on the part of the government. Would Guizot 

10 Janv.,' come over to them after all? Certainly, for a time, it did 

1846 seem possible that an alliance might spring up between the 

two. Early in January Salvandy's law came before the 

Chambers for discussion. It proposed to substitute for the 

"Conseil Royal" a University Council of thirty membeirs, 

twenty of whom should be appointed each year. On this 

Guizot and Thiers again found themselves face to face and 

if the former could have gained the support of the "Neo- 

" Montalembert, closing session 1845. Quoted Mrs. Oliphant. "Mon- 
talembert," II. 89. 

ISO 



Catholics" he might have succeeded in permanently silencing 
his rival. But the law was not acceptable to Montalembert 
and his colleagues because their party would not have any 
guarantees for representation, and Guizot was again discom- 
fited. The opposition took heart and their newspapers even 
went so far as to declare the University's position secure 
and impregnable : 

"The fact is that the blow aimed at the old "Conseil Royal" 
is only one episode in the great debate raging for two years 
between secular and ecclesiastical power, between the Uni- 
versity and the clergy. Perhaps the time has not yet come 

to settle this important question. The Chamber, wishing to 

J otifyicil dss 
reserve to itself the sole right of decision, is studying the Debats 

question and hesitates to announce any decision." 31 Janv., 

The Journal des Debats and the Universitaires were bitterly 
deceived ! Three weeks later the Chamber of Deputies, led by 
Berryer, announced its decision to go still further and help 
the Church. 

It will be remembered that a vote had not even been taken on 
Thiers' report of Villemain's law. The 21st of February, the 
opposition, thinking to discountenance Guizot still more, pro- 
posed that the discussion and vote on Villemain's law be Moniteur, 
made the "order of the day." This Guizot, as Premier, re- ^^18^6^' 
fused to allow. It was then that one of the "Neo-Catholics" 
made a brilliant move taking the Chamber entirely by sur- 
prise. He informed Guizot that a refusal to submit the 
law to discussion and vote, was equal to its withdrawal, and 
asked him if this implied a promise on the part of the govern- 
ment, of a new law. To the astonishment of everyone present 
M. Guizot affirmed this statement.^® This was the "conversa- 

^ Berryer: "Mais je viens d'entendre que le projet de la reprise de 
la loi etait une forme de retrait d'une loi que je regarde comma mau- 
vaise; c'est un retrait auquel oh veut faire acquiescer la Chambre, par 
la deliberation de ce moment; et ce n'est pas seulement un retrait, 
c'est la promesse de nous apporter une loi basee sur des principes et 
droits de I'Etat en matiere de I'enseignement public, d'accomplir la 
liberte de conscience et la liberte d'enseignement, le retrait d'une loi qui 
doit etre congue dans les idees plus generenses et fondee sur des 
doctrines plus liberales, me determinent a participer au rejet de la 
proposition de reprise." 

Guizot replied: "Le projet de loi que la chambre auront a discuter 

151 



tion tres vive, tres piquante" that took place in the Chamber 

of Deputies. The promise of a law more liberally conceived 

and more in accordance with the 69th Article of the Charter 

was, indeed, a cause of encouragement to the "Neo-Cath- 

olics." The following day the dissolution of the Chambers 

V / Univers, y^^^ pronounced for July 6th, and new elections were called 

Mars, etc.! for August ist. 

1846; Strengthened by this check to the cause of the University, 

the Committee for the Defense of Religious Liberty set to 

. yr work to prepare for the coming elections. The columns of 

talembert, L' Univers were filled with advice to the Catholic electors 

T°th ^^"^ ^^^^ persuasive arguments for the uncertain. In the 

liques dans midst of all this excitement, however, L' Univers did not 

les pro- forget its fellow-sufferers in other lands, and frequently made 
chaines ° ^ ^ j 

elections eloquent appeals for the Poles and the Irish. ^^ At the same 
time that the committee seemed to be gaining the fruits of its 
Corre- labour, the favourable attitude of the government and a shifting 
spondant, 10 of position on the part of the various political parties gave 
J*uil et, 1846 j.]^g "Neo-Catholics" cause for hope. A change was apparently 
coming over the field of political controversy. Thiers' Re- 
publicans and some of the Legitimists were coming together. 
The milder Republicans and Moderate Legitimists, on the 
other hand, seemed to favour the "Neo-Catholics," while the 
attitude of the ministry led the few supporters of the gov- 
ernment to the side of UUnivers. The "Neo-Catholics" posi- 
tion seemed infinitely bettered; already the University seemed 
defeated.-" But still another incident gained great numbers 

dera en harmonie avec ces idees ; il se proposera de ma'intenir les 
droits de I'Etat en matiere de I'enseignement public, d'accomplir les 
promesse de la charte en matiere de la liberie de I'enseignement, et 
de constituer le gouvernement supreme de I'instruction publique, de 
telle sorte qu'il reponde a ces deux buts." L'Univers, 22 Fevr. 1846. 

" As early as 1830-1834 O'Connell visited them. On his death, funeral 
services were held for him all over France. Lacordaire pronounced 
his funeral oration at Notre Dame in the presence of many of the 
high officials — ecclesiastical and secular — of the realm. 

*"'Aujour dhui, les repugnances qu'ils soulevaient naguere se sont en 
grande partie calmee; demain I'opinion publique plus eclaircie, se pro« 
noncera en faveur de la liberte religieuse et de la liberte d'enseigne- 
ment." Courrier Frangais, 22 Juillet 1846. 

IS2 



for the government and Montalembert's party as well ; on the. 
30th day of August, forty-eight hours before the vote, another 
attempt was made on the life of the king. The result was a 
frightened reversal of opinion favoring a conservative policy. 
Louis Philippe assassinated, a Regency and a liberal majority, 
what might France become ! The bourgeois shuddered at the 
thought ; as a result, Guizot and Montalembert came out of 
the elections stronger than ever. For the "Neo-Catholics" 
it was indeed a "true and legitimate success." Of the 226 
candidates avowedly for religious liberty, 146 were elected. 
A new era seemed to be opening for the "Neo-Catholics" ; 
soon they would not have to fight their battles alone. The 
government strengthened by the elections might come to their 
assistance; if not, they were now a considerable body, their 
numbers and their influence would cause them to be reckoned 
with, they could find support elsewhere. After sixteen years 
of struggle the "Neo-Catholics" were at last an "embarras 
parlementaire." They had finally gained the position their 
leader had told them they must attain ; now they would not 
be deceived in their prophecies. 

One of the most significant phases of the elections had 
been the arrival on the scene of M. de Falloux, the author of 
Law Falloux (1850). Still another important incident was 
the change in the personnel and attitude of the Papacy. Greg- 
ory XVI had died, and Pius IX "Gioberti's Pope" was elected. 
For two years Rome enjoyed a policy of Liberalism. For the 
"Neo-Catholics" this change in papal policy meant much ; 
it did indeed seem as if the fulfilment of their wishes was 
near at hand.^^ An "embarras parlementaire," a liberal Pope 
was in the throne — so great was their gain that even when he 
had gone over to the reactionaires they were able to hold 
fast to the new position attained in the political world. 

A really astounding state of affairs followed after the 
elections, — a period of agreement between King, Pope and 
the "Neo-Catholics." The chambers even flattered the new 
Pontif.-^ The government and L'Umvers were at one in 



V. Henri de 
Riancey. 
"Compte 

Render des 

Elections" 

de 1846 



^' "Nul Pape n'a plus fait que Pius IX pour que I'unit catholique devint 
une vivante et puissante realite." Spiiller Evolution Politique de 
I'Eglise, ch. XV. 

^ V. La Patrie, 20 Juin 1846. I'Univers, 21 Juin 1846. Moniteur 

153 



regard to the policy of breaking the English Alliance and 
the steps to be taken concerning Switzerland, and finally, it was 
announced that the law promised in 1846 would soon appear. 
A year later Salvandy proposed his law. While it upheld in 
principle the right of families, it still maintained the require- 
ment of a University certificate of ability, for all instructors 
and professors. It was verbose and deceiving- The only con- 
cession the "Neo-Catholics" had obtained from the government 
was the omission of the clause prohibiting orders from teach- 
ing. The "Neo-Catholics" were furious, and justly so, at the 
government ; they felt they had again been betrayed, but 
the government could do no more, it was already in its death 
throes. Disgusted, the Church party turned to its new allies, 
the Moderate Republicans.^' The Teste scandal and the 
suppression of the Chapter of St. Denis sealed this alliance: 
Guizot had lost them forever.^* Still others joined them when 
the government became embroiled in the affair of the Baptists, 
and even their old enemy I'Ami de la Religion et du roi 
rapidly cast aside the barriers between them and finally lent 
its voice to the "Neo-Catholics' " demand for the liberties of 
Italy, Poland and Ireland. ^^ The threats made against the 
church at the Reform Banquets only tended to heighten their 
mutual hatred of a government that did not dare to put down 
''the turn-coat hberals."-*' The February days came and the 
Revolution followed. In that troublesome time Frenchmen 
found that one institution alone remained stable and they fled 
to it in utter despair. The church was no longer despised. 
A Republic was established, with Louis Napoleon as Presi- 
dent. Meanwhile Montalembert had found a confrere in 
arms — the abbe Dupanloup, whose entrance into the field of 
political controversy had been prepared by his book "De la 
Pacification Religieuse" written four years before. As soon 

Janv. 1848. rUnivers, v. nos. 4-9, Sept. 9 ct 1846, 2 Juil, 13, Oct. 
10 and 14, Nov. 1847, 15 Janv. 1848. 

^v. Thiers et loi Falloux, L. Barthou 8. v. I'Univers, 15 Avril 1849. 

'■^Y. Debidour "E et E" 447-8. v. I'Univers, 15 Avril 1847. 
These three cases all concerned the question of religious liberty 
and were decided by the government in a spirit contrary to the wishes 
of the Liberal Catholics. 

"v. Ami de la Religion et du roi, 9 Oct. 1847. 

'•v. ibid, No. 13, Dec. 1847. 

154 



as the affairs of the Second Republic were settled, Mon- 
talembert, Thiers and Cousin were set to work on a law for 
the liberty of public instruction. This was a strange partner- 
ship. Thiers said he had been converted to the cause by 
the social revolution,-^ while Cousin had renounced the greater 
part of his philosophy. Early in the year 1850 the famous 
"loi Falloux" was proposed. ^^ The debate opened in the 
"Chambre Constituante" on the fourteenth of January. In 
the meantime many events had made the government favor- 
able to the law; a large number of the clergy had joined 
the Moderate Republican party and were become its back- 
bone, and Louis Napoleon, too, needed the support of the 
church. The June Days had clearly shown him this fact, 
and his expedition to Rome had been but a prelude to what 
the government was to grant. Beugnot reported the law, 
Thiers and Montalembert defended it,^^ but it was not without 
a hard fight that the proposed law was finally passed (March 
15, 1850.) The "Monopole Universitaire" was destroyed; 
a "letter of obedience" from the bishops was to take the 
place of a ''brevet de capacite" from the University, for those 
instructors who belonged to religious orders. Entire freedom 
was allowed to private instruction. The only thing required 
was a formal certificate of morality and ability. The Council 
of the University was replaced by a "Conseil superieur de 
instruction publique" composed of clergy, magistrates and 
representatives from private institutions. In brief, the clergy 
gained a double advantage in that they obtained not only 
the right to establish their own independent institutions, but 

-' Quant a la liberie d' enseignement, je suis change. Je le suis non 
par une revolution dans mes convictions mais par une revolution dans 
I'etat social. Je porte ma haine et ma chaleur la ou aujourd'hui 
est I'ennemi. Cet enemmi c'est la demagogie, et je ne lui livrerai pas 
le dernier debris de I'ordre social, c'est a dire I'eietablissemient catho- 
lique." Thiers to de Montjau Ami de la Religion et du roi, 18 
Juin 1848. 

^"La loi Falloux, comme on I'appelle, pourrait s'appeler aussi la loi 
Thiers." Henri de Lacombe Proces verbaux de la commission de la 
loi Falloux. 

''For the relationship of Thiers and Montalembert, v. Lecaunet— 
"Montalembert" II, 390-5- 

155 



Debidour, also the right of sharing in the directing of the instruction 

given in the pubHc schools. 

The fundamental cause of this striking victory, gained by 

the "Neo-Catholics" in 1850 after their long struggle under, 

Louis Philippe, is found in the opening lines of an early 

prophecy made by Montalembert, a prophecy that seemed, 

for the moment, to have been fulfilled: "Dans un temps 

ou nul ne salt que faire de sa vie, ou nulle cause ne reclame 

ni merite ce devouement qui retombaient naguere comme un 

poids ecrasant sur nos coeurs vides, nous avons enfin trouve 

une cause qui ne vit que de devouement et de foi. Qiuand 

notre poussiere sera melee a celle de nos peres, le monde 

adorera ce que nous portons deja avec amour dans nos ames, 

I'Avemr, devant cette beaute qui a tout le prestige de I'antiquite et 
■6 Mars, 1831 , , , , . . ... 

tout le charme de la jeunesse, cette puissance qui apres avoir 

fonde le passe de rhomme, fecondera tous les siecles futurs, 

cette consolation qui peut seule reconcilier Thomme a la vie, 

la terre au ciel, cette double et sublime destinee; le monde 

regenere par Dieu." 

The very heart of La Mennais is found in this eloquent pro- 
phecy uttered by his disciple, but in 1850 the prophecy was only 
half fulfilled. The Neo-CathoHcs had fought a good fight and 
bad won. Here was the golden opportunity for which they had 
so valiantly struggled. Although the moment was at hand, the 
opportunity seized and measures set in operation to begin their 
noble work unhindered now by a vacillating government, or 
by a Voltarian opposition, nevertheless they failed. And 
why? Because at the very moment of reward, the church 
suddenly again dominated by an over-ambitious faction, allied 
itself with the temporal power, and the results were not 
the happy ones foreseen by the men who had brought her 
this rich gift. In view of the final outcome, it is hiard 
to avoid the final conclusion that to many who supported it, 
the "loi Falloux" was only a step toward the "Coup d'fitat," 
but there is no evidence that the "Young Catholics," now 
veterans in the Chamber, were aware of this at the time. 

The vision of Montalembert fades, but not forever. It 
has never entirely disappeared. From time to time there have 
been moments when an opening in the dark cloud hanging 

156 



over Christianity in the Nineteenth Century has shown that 
there is still the spirit there, that it has not died out. Such 
examples are found in the subsequent history of the Church 
in France, the later life of Mgr. Affre, for instance. This 
gives to many the hope that it may some day appear in all 
the beauty in which it was first conceived by the now for- 
gotten and disowned La Mennais, by the young knight of 
the Chamber of Peers, and by the saintly Frederic Ozanam. 
May it stand forth in all the sublimity of its first birth, 
free from political taint, pure, solemn, obedient and command- 
ing. Only then will the prophecy of Montalembert come 
true. 

Little now remains to be done except to follow the other 
institution to its end. One attained its victory, the other 
was to fail. 

The year 1845 was an important epoch for the July Mon- 
archy in that it saw a great change come over the surface 
of affairs in France. It witnessed the resignation of Thiers 
from Guizot's ministry, and the beginnings of the controversy 
incident to the break up of the English alliance — a con- 
troversy of which the differences over Tahiti and Morocco 
were a premonition. These episodes were indications of the 
intention of France to continue her former colonial policy 
in the Pacific and Mediterranean. In this one respect she 
remained consistent; in all others she was uncertain and at 
times contradictory. Thiers, then, weary of Guizot's policy 
of following the King's dictation and seeing an opportunity 
to become the leader of both oppositions in the Chamber of 
Deputies, by means of the question about pubHc instruction, 
resigned, and became known as the leader of the Parlia- 
mentary Republicans and the "Universitaires." At the time 
of his resignation the Republicans too, had experienced a 
change, otherwise, it is probable that Thiers never could 
have become the chief of a particular faction of the Re- 
publican party. A division had taken place in its ranks, 
and it was separated into two groups; the one holding that 
a mere change to a Republican form of government was all 
that was necessary, the other believing that a social reform 
was the only solution of the problem. But this difference 



157 



Quoted 

Bourgeois, 

III, 262 



Justin 

McCarthy, 



in opinion was not confined to the members of the Chambers, 
it had spread to the Republican electorate as well, and, fur- 
thermore, was beginning to be felt in the other parties. 
For example, there was no longer one solid Legitimist Party, 
there were now Extreme and Moderate Legitimists. Thus 
redivided the aspect of French politics becomes, from the 
point of view of parties, more complicated; the Moderate 
and Extreme Republicans, the Moderate and Extreme Legiti- 
mists, the Socialists and the Government's party, a small and 
almost insignificant group of former "doctrinaires." This 
period of political transition or redivision is further marked 
by three publications which had a considerable effect on the 
reading public: Lamartine's "Histoire des Girondins," a 
panegyric of the Revolution; La Mennais' "Livre du Peuple" 
a religious glorification of Socialism; and Eugene Sue's 
"Mysteres de Paris," an hysterical exposition of the existing 
social conditions and a condemnation of the existing social 
system. 

Despite this change in the field of politics, however, the 
real leaders were few in number and remained the same. 
As in 1840, they were Thiers and Guizot: "il n'y a plus que 
deux possibilites politiques, vous ou moi," the latter is said 
to have remarked to Thiers. The rivalry then, still continued, 
the one always seeking to contradict the other. Thiers or 
Guizot? That became the entire political question in the 
last three years of Louis Philippe's reign. For the rest of 
the year, while Thiers was occupied in attacking the min- 
istry's system of parliamentary corruption, and preparing as 
a remedy to the "pays legal" a plan of electoral reform, 
Guizot was making promises to the Catholics, showing him- 
self favorable to their cause in all its phases and seeking 
to join their cause to his own in the forthcoming elections. 
So much for the internal political occupations of France; 
In the field of external politics there was much less petty 
policy, the break in the English Alliance was approaching. 

The first sign of this change is found in the visit of the 
Emperor Nicholas to England the latter part of the year 



Hist, I, 443 1844. The two countries, England and Russia, after all, had 



158 



much in common. In the first place two were far better 
than three in the East. Russia could not be dislodged, and 
it became a question of England or France. Here was 
England's opportunity to assure her eastern policy. For the 
English the situation seemed to resolve itself into a choice 
between the Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, and 
the British Empire. Allied with France, England would 
never have become an Empire. This was the first and great- 
est reason for the break. The other two causes are not of 
such importance; the one was a matter of sympathy, the 
religious policy of England in Ireland and of Russia in 
Poland was somewhat similar, while the other was a question 
of commercial rivalry between France and England. For 
France, on the other hand, there were three forces at work 
to break the alliance. The one, as has been noted, was 
economic, but as the existing government seemed to hold 
such matters in low esteem it was not, though it should have 
been, of the greatest importance. The two prime factors for 
France, then, were the "Neo-Catholics" and the influence 
of Metternich. 

The "Neo-Catholics" favoured a break with England from 
principle rather than from policy, though they did admit, 
as we have seen, the commercial disadvantages of the entente. 
But in their eyes the most important reasons were two in 
number, England was Protestant, and the English govern- 
ment had opposed the "martyred" O'Connell. And, as the 
French ministry and government approached nearer and 
nearer the "Neo-Catholics," for the elections were not now 
far off, their policy must needs have conformed at least 
temporarily to the desires of their new ally. 

The most potent influence, however, was that of Metter- 
nich. France under Louis Philippe became at this time the 
dupe of Metternich. The wily diplomat tempted the king 
with the prospect of restoring the ancient dynastic glories of 
the Bourbans if the King of the July Monarchy would but 
conform to the principles of the Holy Alliance. He desired 
to transform "cette detestable boutique," as he is said to 
have called the July Government. His method was most 



Walpole, 
V, 353 



V. I'Univers, 

30 Oct., 

1844 



V. ibid, also 

2, 8 Janv., 

1845 



d'Haus- 

•sonville, 

iHist., Dipl. 

T. 



Debidour, 

£tudes 

Critiques, 

348 



159 



Bourgeois, 
in, 355-6 



J. Letter of 
Louis 
Philippe 
to the 
Queen of 
the Bel- 
gians, 14 
Sept., 1846 

iRevue 
Retro., 
No. 22 



Jesuitical. Ever so slowly Metternich had won Louis Philippe 
from the British Alliance — at first by the Mehemet-Ali epi- 
sode, then by the right of search controversy, later by the 
policy in Tahiti and Morocco, and again by the "afifaire 
Pritchard." But, .above all, the advice of Metternich to 
obliterate his revolutionary origin by a reversion to a far too 
old tradition of dynastic glory was what appealed most to the 
mind of the old king, and this, he saw, could only be accom- 
plished by a rupture with England. Both governments, then 
awaited the opportunity to break the bonds of the Quadruple 
Alliance. In 1845, the occasion presented itself in the 
Spanish Marriage controversy. Isabella of Spain and her 
sister, the Infanta Louisa Fernanda were both unmarried. 
As early as 1841 it had been agreed by England and France 
that Louis Philippe's son should marry the Infanta Louisa, 
but not until the Queen of Spain had found and married a 
husband. Suddenly in 1846, the French Ambassador suggested 
to Queen Isabella's mother Maria Christina, that the due de 
Montpensier be married to the Infanta at the same time that 
the Queen's nuptials were celebrated, and he suggested as a 
likely candidate for the Queen's hand, Don Francisco of Assis, 
due de Cadiz, who was known to be physically unfit for 
marriage. England at once protested, and this protest was 
rendered all the more significant by the return of Palmerston, 
the friend of Thiers, to power. He did not have, of course, 
the slightest sympathy with the policy of Guizot. England 
then proceeded to nominate a Coburg. To this Guizot ob- 
jected on the ground that it was contrary to the agreement 
of 1841. It is interesting to note that the French themselves 
do not seem to have favoured this policy. Some feared the 
second isolation of France from a European Concert, and 
others the responsibilities such a marriage would impose upon 
the country. In spite of the prevailing public opinions both 
in France and England, however, Louis Philippe continued 
his course, and on the tenth of October 1846, the marriages 
were solemnized. England was deeply hurt and cordial re- 
lations between the two countries were suspended, England 
claiming that Louis Philippe had been guided simply by 



160 



dynastic ambitions. ^^ ^2 33 ^he entire affair seems to have been 
carried on from a selfish point of view and without any 
inquiries as to the wishes and desires of the British and 

"^ The following letters furnish interesting comments on the break : 
"a S. M. La Reine de la Grande Bretagne, 8 Sept. 1846. Madame: 
Confiante de cette amitie dont V. M. a donne tant de preuves, et dans 
I'aimable interet que vous avez toujours temoigne a tous nos enfants ; 
je m'empresse de vous annoncer le mariage de notre fils Montpensier 
avec rinfante Louise-Fernande, Get evenement de famille nous comble 
de joie, parce que j'espere qu'il assure le bonheur de notre fils cheri 
et que nous retrouverons dans I'lnfante une nouvelle fille aussi bonne, 
aussi aimable que ses ainees, et qui ajoutera a notre bonheur interieure, 
le seul vrai de ce monde, et que vous meme savez si bien apprecier. 
Je vais demander d'avance votre amitie pour notre nouvelle enfant, 
sure qu'elle partagera tous les sentiments de devouement et d'affection 
de nous tous pour vous, pour le prince Albert et pour toute votre 
chere famille. Je suis, Madame, de V. M. la toute devouee soeur et 
amie. Marie Amelie. 

a. s. M. la Reine des Francois, Osborn, 10 Sept. 1846. 

Madame : Je viens de recevoir la lettre de V. M. du 8 de ce mois, 
et m'empresse de vous en remercier. Vous vous souviendriez peutetre 
de ce qui s'est passe a Eu entre le roi et moi. Vous connaissez 
I'importance que j'ai toujours attache au maintien de notre entente 
cordiale et las zele avec laquelle jy ai travaille; vous avez apris sans 
doute que nous nous sommes refusee d'arranger le mariage entre 
la reine de Espagne et notre cousin Leopold que les deux reines 
avaient desire vivement, dans le seul but de ne pas nous eloigner 
d'une marche qui serait plus agreable au roi, quoique nous ne 
pouvons considerer cette marche comme la meilleure. Vous pouvez 
done aisement comprendre que I'annonce de ces doubles mariages ne 
pouvait nous causer que de la surprise et un bien vif regret. Je 
vous demande pardon, Madame de vous parler de la politique a ce 
moment, mais j'aime pouvoir me dire que j'ai toujours ete sincere 
avec vous. Je vous prie, etc. Victoria R. 

Revue Retrospective — No. 8. 

^^v. Aberdeen's letter to Guizot Sept. 14, 1846, in which he tells 
of the general regret in England. Rev. Retros. No. 20. 

^ "Le due de Gadiz ne donne aucun appui au governement espagnol : 
Non seulement ceux qui paraissaient le preferer sont peu redoubtables, 
mais encore ils ne le suivront point. Les partisans du Gomte de 
Montemoulin seraient devenus, au contraire, les defensers les plus 
zeles, et les plus surs du trone d'Isabelle. . . . Dans ces conditions 
nous ne pouvons applaudir au mariaige du due de Montpensier avec 
rinfanta dona Louisa." I'Univers, 14 Sept. 1846. v. also Journal des 
Dehats, 16 Oct. 1846. Constitutionnel, 15 Sept. 1846. 

161 



V. Chap. I 

Le Gofif, 
ii6 et seq 
I'Univers, 

II Nov., 
1846 



V. Constitu- 

tionnel, 
Nos. Dec, 

1847 
National, 
Dec, 1847 



I'Univers, 
14 Nov, 10 
Dec, 1847 
Ami de la 
Rel. et du 

roi, IS 
Janv., 1848, 
19 Fev., 1848 

P. B. St. 
John, p. 10 



French people. The general opinion in France was one of 
disgust and keen anxiety for the future. The Spanish mar- 
riages would prove a heavy burden. The Oppv)sition did not 
hesitate to voice their protest in the Chambers. In another 
country, however, there was joy: Metternich's point had been 
gained, the transformation of the July Monarchy was 
completed. 

The result of this policy for Louis Philippe and his dynasty 
is important. The last of the original bases on which the 
monarchy had been founded, and on which alone the bour- 
geoisie had guaranteed its existence, had been knocked from 
under it. Louis Philippe had now accepted the principles of 
the Holy Alliance, the monarchy had no longer a "raison 
d'etre." Placed between two fires, the old School and the 
Revolution, embodied in the Radicals, what could the July 
Monarchy do but turn to the old? Louis Philippe had been 
the dupe, he now became the accomplice of Metternich. "Con- 
tradictions destroy themselves," cried one politician. Before, 
the king had sacrificed everything for the English Alliance, 
now he had thrown that alliance over; what remained? 

The government, though temporarily strengthened by the 
elections of 1846, compromised this newly gained force by a 
foreign policy absolutely contrary to the wishes of many of the 
people. Within its borders there was a financial crisis and 
a terrific upheaval in the business world, while outside of 
France another revolution occurred. The ministry sought to 
appease the one by a foolish and heavy system of taxation,^* 
while for the other, it sided with Metternich. Civil War had 
broken out in Switzerland. Its cause was religious, it was 
almost a repetition of the Reformation except that it lacked 
the character of a "Pope at Geneva." The country desired 
and finally demanded that troops be sent to proteqt the 
borders. All were unanimous in this request, but some, for 
example the "Neo Catholics," for an entirely different reason. 
They desired the protection of the Jesuits to whom many 
had ascribed the blame of the rebellion. An army was sent 
to the borders and then its purpose was declared. It was to 



' The cinq per cent affair, v. Rev. Retros. Nos. 18-22. 



162 



protect Jesuits! The cause of this poHcy is clear: France Debidour 
internally was in a terrible condition, economic crises had Critiques, 
made the people call all the louder for electoral reform in P- 35i 
order to correct the abuses of the government. In France, 
then, the government had need of support, and in acting 
in Switzerland as they did they were but trying to win the 
good graces of the new party so recently become an "embarras 
parlementaire" — and also the remaining Conservatives who had 
joined the "Neo-Catholics" and who still believed in the 
Monarchical Principle. This internal support, in turn, was 
not sufficient; they needed the aid of the Powers as well. 
Louis Philippe had already bent to the Holy Alliance, what 
better support could he have than those very monarchs who 
had restored his cousin to the throne? And so it was that 
sacrificing Poland, forgetting a liberal Pope, and his liberal 
supporters in Italy, the government joined in the support of 
the Jesuits. Thiers and the Republicans made a violent pro- 
test; all of France applauded them. The Reform Banquets 
became more popular; Lamartine and Ledru-RoUin no longer 
bridled their tongues when proposing a "toast." A mammoth 
banquet was arranged for the 23rd of February. This date 
was the occasion for the overthrow of Louis Philippe "A bas 
Guizot" — "a bas le roi des barricades," the people cried. Noth- 
ing was simpler — ^the July Monarchy had lost all raison d'etre; 
on the 24th of February it had passed into the pages of 
history. 

It was a year of Revolutions. Early in the month, Italy 
again shook ofif temporarily the Austrian yoke, and a few 
v^eeks later the old regime at Vienna was forcibly discarded, 
never to return.^^ 

It is one of the easiest tasks in the world to name and 
present a long list of reasons for the failure of an institution 
or the fall of a dynasty; it is not always so simple a matter 

^ One author has remarked : "Ainsi par une consequence f atale 
de leur alliance se trouvaient emportees dans une meme disgrace, 
le roi des barricades et le champion des trones legitimes. L'un 
apres avoir feint de servir la Revolution, s'etait ouvertement retourne 
contre elle, I'autre I'avait meconnue toute sa vie. Unis pour la combattre 
et n'ayant pas vaincu, il n'est pas etonnant qu'ils avaient succombe 
ensemble." Debidour, "Etudes Critiques," p. 353. 

163 



to find the fvindamental reasons. But in the case of the 
July Monarchy the task is not so difficult. One principal 
reason is found in the Industrial Revolution sweeping over 
the world; machinery could save men from hard labour, but 
it could not provide them with other tasks. Its inventors, 
furthermore, were not lawmakers, and therefore, could not 
prevent the misfortunes it would temporarily bring. The pro- 
fessional law-makers, on the other hand, were not experienced 
enough to counteract this harm, while those who had had 
experience were either silenced by the oversuspicious bour- 
geoisie or were too blinded by old theories to perceive an 
entirely new situation manifestly requiring new laws. Still 
another fundamental cause, closely allied to the economic one, 
was the transition the "haute bourgeoisie" had undergone. 
Unsuccessful in the governing of the country, they had re-> 
turned to their old occupations, but in a different sense, for 
they were more protected by the government and aided to a 
considerable extent by the saving invention of machinery. 
They amassed great fortunes and became a new aristocracy 
which lacked many of the essential elements of the older, 
and was characterized by a sort of jealousy which made them 
ashamed to be governed. The third and last cause is found 
in the fact that the Monarchy had not lived up to the Charter 
it had accepted. The Monarchy was one thing, the Charter 
quite another. It is only necessary to turn back to the opening 
pages of Chapter I to have this fact clearly illustrated. What 
promises of the Charter had the July Monarchy fulfilled? 
It came into life upholding that great but vague moral prin- 
ciple of the Revolution — liberty. This principle it soon dis- 
carded. The very Charter, the moral principle, then, aban- 
doned, the bases of its structure removed, it could not possibly 
have stood longer. It was really wonderful that the July 
Monarchy endured as long as it did. These, then, are the 
principal reasons for the fall of the July Monarchy, and 
of these reasons the first and most important is the misinter- 
pretation of the Charter. The proud and sanctimonious "Doc- 
trinaires" had continuously refused to hear the words of 
warning given them! Two brief citations from pamphlets 
written the year after the Revolution of July show more 

164 



clearly than anything else could do, the fact that France was 
in exactly the same position constitutionally in the February 
Days 1848 as she was in July 1830. They might have served 
as well for the later period as for the earlier: 

"Let us tell all the truth; the revolution of 1830 was not 
put down in order to overthrow the dynasty and save the 
Charter, but rather it sprang from an equal desire to over- 
throw both the charter and the dynasty. 

"The dynasty, on the other hand, fell because from 1814 it 
regarded the charter as a definite and complete treaty of peace p-j-ance ^sur 
when in reality it should only have seen in it the preliminaries les verita- 
of a treaty the conclusion of which common interest rendered ^^ j^ -^^^ 
necessary." de 1830," 

How true this is of Louis Philippe as well, for what other j[^^ 1831^" 
purpose did the Charter ever serve under him than that of 
a treaty of peace? Its noble promise of liberties and new 
laws were kept in darkness except at times when a cloud ap- 
peared on the political horizon, and then to disperse that cloud, 
or to gain adherents to counteract the opposition, the charter 
was brought forth and a new law on a liberty guaranteed 
therein was promised. The political end gained, if the law 
appeared at all, it proved a grievous disappointment — witness 
the struggle of the "Neo-Catholics" for liberty of instruction- 
how often were they made the dupes of the charter by the 
false promises and fair words of the government. It was 
the same with the Press laws and Electoral Reform. The 
Charter, then, was a mockery, it might as well never have 
been written. Many Frenchmen of the February Days must 
have concurred in the words written by one of their fellow- 
citizens seventeen years earlier : 

"Alas, if a constitution on parchment is hard to write, how 
much more difficult is it to erase — and you call that a guarantee ! 
But when, in accordance with the new ideas, you have sep- 
arated the king from his people and have attributed to each 
one his own particular rights, then if a disagreement arises 
between them as to the exercises of their rights, who will 
judge the case? Where will y6u find the supreme authority? 
In force, evidently, "C'etait bien la peine de jurer une 
charte !"^® 

^' "Avertissements aux Souverains sur les dangers actuels de 
I'Europe," Cte de Jouffrey 183 1. 

165 



Such a criticism is equally applicable to the end of Louis 
Philippe's reign, and possibly the Liberal Catholic Movement 
of 1 830- 1 848 is the most striking illustration of this fact, 
as a brief resume will show. In the early beginnings the 
energies of the movement were dispersed in so many direc- 
tions that its influence was more negative than positive. Still 
even at that time it was able to gain a tacit victory over the 
government (the "Ecole Libre" Affair) to strengthen the 
bond between Belgium and France, and together with the 
Republicans to form a large enough opposition favoring the 
Poles, to place Louis Philippe in an embarrassing position 
vis-a-vis the Tsar. Again, the "Neo-Catholics" were powerful 
enough to arouse the newspapers of the time and force the 
French government to join in their opponents' demand for 
condemnation at Rome. Here their first effort failed. A 
few years later we find them gathering together their dis- 
persed cohorts, and then fighting with one sole object in 
view — the liberty of instruction. They were sufficiently 
powerful to cause the defeat of one law (1841), the with- 
drawal of another (1844 and 1846), allied with Rome to 
give the government a moral defeat in the affair of the 
Jesuits (1845), ^^'^ then, their strength increased still more, 
they succeeded in arousing, during a time of profound poli- 
tical apathy, a larger dissenting vote in the Chamber of Peers 
than had been known for a long time (1844- 1845). The 
year 1846 in turn was to be the test for the "Neo-Catholics" — 
they were to come before the people — and with the surprising 
result that over one-half of the candidates avowedly in their 
favour, were returned. Thus strengthened, they defeated an- 
other law, and gained the object for which they had fought, 
under a Republic. As has been said, it is true, this object 
was the means to an end, of which the "Neo-Catholics" it 
seems, were for the most part ignorant. But among the 
men who presented them with this reward were Thiers and 
Cousin, their former most bitter enemies. So much for the 
positive influence that the "Neo-Catholics" exerted under 
Louis Philippe. Such a career renders them an important 
factor to the historian of France. But still another and 
greater influence the church exerted throug'h the prestige 

166 



gained for her by the "Neo-Catholics," and this is shown 
in the subsequent policy of the government after the new 
party had become more powerful. It is an influence partly 
negative, partly positive, more subtle, and consequently more 
difificult to describe. We quote, therefore, as proof of this 
influence, the existence of which had been frequently alluded 
to, the words of one who was first their enemy and then their 
friend, Adolphe Thiers : 

"If I were to write the history of this reign, I should divide 
it into two parts, the first from 1830- 1840, the second from 
1840 to the Revolution of 1848; and I should say that the 
first period was characterized by the predominance of the 
protestant and liberal spirit; that the second was marked by 
a Catholic influence and that a result which necessarily fol- 
lowed, personal royalty now became more prominent, and 
there was a tendency to substitute the monarch's will for that 
of the country. 

"This fact showed itself in the marriages of the family, or 
its attempts at marriages. In the first period, Louis Philippe 
gave one of his daughters to a protestant prince, Leopold, 
who after a revolution became King of Belgium ; he married 
the heir presumptive, the Duke of Orleans, to a protestant 
princess, and he had great hopes of being able to win for 
his second son, the Duke of Nemours, the hand of the future 
Queen of England, the Princess Victoria, to whom had been 
sent the prince's portrait, which she admired too much to 
please the old King William IV, whose preferences were 
for a Coburg. The match fell through because of the Duke's 
unwillingness to change his religion. This all occurred dur- 
ing the epoch of the protestant ministers, Guizot, Gasparin, 
Hunnaun and others, not to speak of free-thinkers. The 
Tuileries was hermetically sealed to clerical influences. This 
lasted so long as there were hopes of the celebration of the 
English marriage. But, when these fell to the ground, the 
royal father turned in another direction, and Catholic 
princesses supplanted protestant princesses. You know all 
about the affair of the Spanish marriages into which Guizot 
entered eagerly, and from which he did not escape without 
tarnishing his glory. I have told you the consequences, ul- 
tramontane influences entered the palace, the government had 

16? 



to compound with Catholicism. This was clearly evident in 
the case of non-sectarian education. Another consequence 
still, which I have pointed out to you. So long as the family 
considered its interests to be on the protestant side, it was 
more liberal, more faithful to its origin; people governed 
themselves, and were allowed to govern themselves, but from 
the moment that Catholicism got the upper hand, the Bour- 
bon came to the surface, the Duke of Orleans was forgotten. 
They opposed the current so determinedly that it increased 
by resistance, until one fine day it became a torrent and 
swept all into the abyss."^''' 

In conclusion an explanation is, perhaps, necessary in 
answer to the question why such a subject has been selected. 
There is always the reason of interest, but that is only justi- 
fiable when substantiated by other reasons less personal and 
more worthy of consideration. In this instance, however, 
the reasons seem justifiable and the grounds for this belief 
are two in number. In the first place while it is an exaggera- 
tion to say that religion is the sole key to history, it is a/ 
recognized fact, nevertheless, that religion is often one of 
several necessary keys to the history of a people. For it is 
frequently, consciously or unconsciously, at the very basis of 
their thoughts, and unless we know their thoughts and the 
fundamentals as well, it is difficult to truly explain their 
actions. This is particularly true of the people of Central 
Europe where for so many centuries the Church of Rome 
held a dominating position, and it is still more true of the 
Latin races. Many historians of today declare that to un- 
derstand the early history of France, one must have a com- 
plete comprehension of the relation of the political and re- 
ligious world. But, this is equally true of the history of 
the nineteenth century. Henry IV and the Edict of Nantes 
are absolutely essential to the understanding of the later 
Reformation and so also are the Civil Constitution, the various 
concordats, the religious parties, the "Neo-Catholics," the 
Law of 1905 for the Nineteenth Century. Church influence 

^' Louis Philippe's reign as seen by Thiers — quoted in Le Goffe — 
L. A. Thiers p. 52 from the article of one Mrs. Crawford — the Paris 
correspondant of the London News, in an account of a conversation 
she had with M. Thiers. 

168 



in the France of today is as important as it was in the earHer 
times. You will find it in the Jesuit Controversy, the Dreyfus 
Case, and it has been at the basis of the divisions in the 
Right and Right Center in very recent times. Literature, 
Art, Religion — all have played and continue to play their 
part in the history of modern France. 

There has been, however, still another reason for selecting 
this particular period, and while that reason may not appeal 
to every historian, still it should perhaps be acknowledged. 
The Reign of Louis Philippe covers one of the brightest and 
most noble periods in the history of the Modern Roman Cath- 
olic Church. And it is of particular interest to recount in a 
day when, despite the fact that the barriers seem to be fall- 
ing, Christianity as a whole seems to be lying under a dark 
and heavy cloud, one of the noblest strifes of a few members 
of the mother-church. In the twentieth century, it is, here, 
indifference, that very plague that La Mennais sought to 
heal ; there, it is allied with politics ; at another place we find 
hatred, and at still another, a condition that is still worse — 
a belief in it as a beautiful institution of the past, a senti- 
mental or worse an aesthetic resort to a fading practice and 
belief ! Surely the period of the "Neo-Catholics" show that, 
despite the terrible obstacles of the time, Christianity was by 
no means dead, and only the enthusiasm and firm belief of 
a small group was needed to fan the dormant flame concealed 
in the apparent ashes it had left in human hearts. There 
have been other La Mennais, Montalemberts and Ozanams — 
they have been in all countries — the "Round Table" in Ger- 
many, the Young Liberals in Italy, the despised "Puseyites" 
in England — all have at different times awakened a Faith that 
seemed to be sleeping the sleep of the dead. And, if we are 
to judge from examples in years not so far back, there are 
and will be others to come who may carry to its last and 
final fulfillment, after many changes and many struggles the 
great vision of the "Neo-Catholics." 



169 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 

The bibliography has been divided into sources and secon- 
dary works. Under the former are found the subdivisions, 
documents, newspapers, letters, memoirs, etc. The docu- 
ments are scattered and access to them is difficult, the three 
papal bulls quoted may be found in the archives of any 
Episcopal library in France and a French translation of them 
has recently been published in the same cover with La Mennais 
"Affaires de Rome." The other documents cited with the 
exception of M. Casimir Perier's Memorandum (Archives 
Nationales, Paris, Dept. Ext. and Appendix Mem, du Baron 
de Barante II) have been taken from the "Archives Par- 
lementaires," J. Madrid et E Laurent, vols. LVI-CVI, Ander- 
son's Constitutions and Other Documents Illustrative of the 
History of France, Hansard's Parliamentary Debates 1840 
(for Mehemet-Ali episode), the Apostolic Letters of Pius IX 
and Gregory XVI and Taschereau "Revue Retrospective," a 
collection of documents discovered at the Palace after Louis 
Philippe's flight in 1848. 

The newspapers which form the sources of the greater part 
of the original material are found, for the most part, in 
France. The most complete collection of VAvenir, the 
journal edited by La Mennais, however, is found in the British 
iMuseum. A complete collection of Ami de la Religion et 
du roi ,(the Galilean paper), of L'Union Catholique amd 
L'Univers both "Neo-Catholics," is preserved in the Library of 
the "Grand Seminaire" at Blois. In addition many other 
papers have been employed, selected for the most part, as 
types of the various political opinions of the time. With this 
in mind I have employed principally; Journal des Debats 
(Republican), le Constitutionnel (Liberal) le Moniteur and' 
le Messager des Chambres (Government), le Drapeau Blanc 
(Legitimist), le Globe (Doctrinaire), le National (Repub- 
lican), la Presse (Opposition) and the three religious papers 

170 



mentioned above. All but the I'Avenir, V Union Catholique, 
and L'Univers may be found in the Archives of the "Bib- 
liotheque Nationale" and the "Bibliotheque Ste Genevieve" at 
Paris. These, together with an excellent collection of con- 
temporary pamphlets on the political and religious controversies 
of the time preserved at the Grand Seminaire, the Bibliotheque 
de la Archeveche and the Bibliotheque du Chateau, ' all in 
Blois, give a complete and many sided view of the events 
recounted. 

In addition to these primary sources there is a vast number 
of memoirs, collections of letters and contemporary literature 
available — but most of these, in turn, are found at the Biblio- 
theque Nationale. Among the most reliable and valuable 
should be mentioned, the two editions of La Mennais' Letters 
by Forgues and by Blaize, Guizot's Memoires, de Broglie 
Souvenirs, Casimir Perier Discours, de Barante Souvenirs, 
Metternich Memoirs, Ozanam, "Pages choisies" (ed. Chatelain), 
Sainte-Beuve "Causeries du Lundi" and "Chroniques Paris- 
iennes" and also perhaps, though less reliable Louis Blanc's 
"Histoire de dix ans." Another very important addition to 
this list are the Letters of Alphonse d'Herbelot (1828-1830) 
published for "La Societe d'Histoire Contemporaine" in 1908. 

The secondary authorities are numerous, but, as a rule, ar^ 
not available in this country. Of the general histories on 
Louis Philippe's reign Thureau-Dangin "Histoire de la Mon- 
archie de Juillet" (7 vols.) is especially commendable abounding 
in information, references and bibliographical material. Along 
with this work, d'Haussonville's "Histoire de la Politique Ex- 
terieure de la Monarchic de Juillet (4 vols.) and Bourgeois 
Manuel historique de la Politique Exterieure de la France vol. 
Ill should be mentioned. Stern's "Geschichte Europas" (vol. 3) 
and Hillebrand's "Geschichte Frankreichs" (2 vols.) are ex- 
cellent general histories on the period. There are many his- 
tories on particular phases of Louis Philippe's reign but the 
majority of them are mediocre. The best of this group are : 
Debidour "Histoire de I'figlise et I'fitat en France de 1798 a 
1879" in which the author gives a decidedly anti-clerical account 
of the period, and Thureau-Dangin "Histoire de I'Eglise et 
de I'Etat sous la Monarchie de Juillet," in which the author 

171 



relates in a sympathetic spirit the "Neo-Catholic Movement," 
devoting but a very few pages to the antecedent movement in 
which I'Avenir figured. Other important works almost in- 
valuable to the student interested in the history of the church 
in Europe are Spiiller's "Evolution Politique et Sociale de 
I'Eglise," Nielson's "Geschichte der Papstums im 19 Jahrhun- 
derts" and Gams "Geschichte der Kirche." Among the best 
biographies the most important and best documented are: 
Mazade "Thiers-Ciquante Annees d'Histoire Contemporaine" de 
Remusat "Thiers," de Crozals "Guizot," C. Boutard "La 
Mennais, Sa vie et ses Oeuvres," a very recent publication 
(1913) C. Marechal — "La Jeunesse de La Mennais," a valuable 
and scholarly consideration of the abbe's early years, G. P. G. 
d'Haussonville, — ^Lacordaire ; Lecaunet-Montalembert, de 
Meaux Montalembert, C. A. Ozanam, — Vie de Frederic 
Ozanam, and Pougeois, Life of Piux IX. 



172 



PRIMARY SOURCES 

A. Documents : 

Lettera Indirezzata dal S. Padre di Vescovi di Polonia II 
Giugno 1832 per inculcare la Massima della Chiesa Catholica 
sulla soumessione alia podesta temporale nell ordine Civile. 

Memoire presentee au S. P. Gregoire XVI par les Redac- 
teurs de I'Avenir et les membres de I'Agence pour la Defence 
de la Liberie Religeuse." 

Sanctissimi Domini Nostri Gregorii Divina Providentia 
Papae XVI Epistola Encyclica ad omnes Patriarohas, Primates, 
Archiespiscopos et Episcopos. Aug. 1832 A.D. 

Lettre de M. de la Mennais au Cardinal Pacca, Paris 2^ 
Fevr. 1831, Paris. Lettre du Cardinal Pacca a M. I'Abbe de 
la Mennais, 16 Aoiit 1832, Rome. 

Epistola Encyclica ad omnes Patriarches Primates Arch- 
episcopos et Episcopos. 7 Jul 1834. 

Memorandum de Casimir Perier sur les affaires d'Ancone. 

Collections of Documents: 

Henri Lacombe — Proces verbeaux de la Commission de la 
loi Falloux, 

Hansard — Parliamentary Debates vols, for 1840. 

J. Madival et E. Laurent — Archives Parlementaires 2* serie 
T. S. LVI-CVI. 

C. M. Anderson — The Constitutions and other Documents 
Illustrative of the History of France, 1789-1901. 

Apostolic Letters of Pius IX and Gregory XVI, 1899. 

Taschereau — Revue Retrospective, 1848. 

B. Newspapers and Pamphlets: 

Correspondant 1832- 1848. 

Constitutionnel 1832- 1848. 

Drapeau Blanc 1840- 1845. 

Journal des Debats 1830- 1848. 

I'Ami de la Religion et du roi 1830- 1848. 

I'Avenir 1830-1831. 

le Globe 1830- 1848. 

La Patrie 1840- 1848. 

173 



rUnivers 1835-1848. 
Le Commerce 1836-1848. 
La Reforme 1830- 1848. 
London Times 1830-1848. 
Messager des Chambres 1830- 1848. 
Moniteur 1830-1848. 
National 1830- 1848. 
Quotidienne 1832- 1848. 
Revue des deux Mondes. 
"le Roi des Barricades" I da St. Elme 1844. 
"La Poire Couronnee" 1844 (Gill) 1844. 
"Appel a la France sur les veritables causes de la Revolu- 
tion de 1830," de Suleau Paris 1831. 
"Avertissements aux souverains sur les dangers actuels de 

I'Europe," de Jouffroy, Paris 1830. 
"Compte Rendue des Elections de 1846," Henri de Riancey, 

1846 Paris. 
"De I'Avenir de la France," de Conney, Paris 1832. 
"Reflexions d'un Royaliste," F. DoUe, Paris 1831. 

C. Memoirs, Letters, Contemporary Literature, etc. 

de Barante — Souvenirs, 4 vols, Paris 1890. 

O. Barrot — Memoirs, 2 vols Paris, 1874-9. 

P. J. Beranger — Ma Biographie, Paris, 1899. 

L. Blanc — Histoire de Dix Ans, 2 vols, Paris 1841. 

A. Berard — Souvenirs Historiques sur la Revolution de 1830, 

Paris 1834. 
de Broglie — Ecrits et Discours, Paris 1863. 

Souvenirs TS III & IV, Paris 1886. 
A. Capefigue — La Gouvernment de Juillet 1830-1835. 
A. De Tocqueville — La Democratie en Amerique 1840. 
X. Doudan — Melanges et Lettres, Paris, 1876-7. 
A. Dupin — Memoirs, 3 vols, Paris 1855-1861. 
Guizot— Memoirs TS VI & VII, Paris 1858-1868. 
H. Heine — Lutece 1840-1845. 

Franzosische Zustande II, 1840-3. 
A. d'Herbelot Lettres. "La Jeunesse Liberale," Paris, 

1908. 
V. Hugo — Preface "le Roi's s'amuse," 1834 Paris. 
H. Lacordaire — Correspondance inedite T. X Paris, 1886. 
de la Fayette — Memoirs T VI, 1832. 

F. de la Mennais — Correspondance ed Forgues, Paris 1858. 
" " " ed A. Blaize, 1866. 

Une correspondance inedite published by 
V. Girand — Revue des Deux Mondes, i Nov. 1905. 
F. de la Mennais Oeuvres, Paris, i860. 
Metternich— Memoirs, vols. V-VII N. Y. 1880-4. 

174 



Montalembert — Discours, Paris 1861. 
F, Ozanam — Pages choisies, ed. Chatelain, Paris 1898. 
La Philosophic Chretienne T. I Paris 1846. 
A. Pepin — Deux Ans de Regne, Paris 1833. 
Casimir-Perier — Opinions et Discours, Paris, 1838. 
Sainte-Beuve — Causeries de Lundi T XI, Paris 1874. 

— Nouveau Lundis Paris 1870. 

— Chroniques Parisiennes, Paris, 1876. 
Saint Simon — Oeuvres T I, 1865-1878. 
Georges Sand — Histoire de ma Vie, Paris 1854-5. 
de Talleyrand — Memoires, vols. Ill, V, Paris 189 1. 
A. Thiers — Discours Parlementaires — Paris 1879- 1883. 
L. Veuillot — Rome et Lorette, 2 vols. 1841 Paris. 
— Melanges 1845 Paris. 

SECONDARY AUTHORITIES 

A. Histories : 

E. Bourgeois — Manuel Historique de la Politique Exteriure 

T. Ill, Paris 1909. 
Cambridge Modern History — vol. X, ch. 15, and vol. XI 

ch. 2, E. Bourgeois. 
/. B. H. R. Capefigue — Histoire de I'Europe depuis 1' Avene- 

ment de Louis Philippe, 10 vols, Paris 1845. 
Debidour — Histoire Diplomatique de I'Europe. Paris 

1865-79. 
/. O. d'Haussonville — Histoire de la Politique Exterieure 

de la Monarchic de Juillet to. 2 vols. Paris 1850. 
K. Hillebrand — Geschichte Frankreichs 2 vols., 1877-9. 
Lovisse et Ramband — Histoire Generale vol. X, chs. 11 and 

ID, Paris 1898. 
P. Thureau-Dangin — Histoire de la Monarchic de Juillet ts. 

7, Paris 1884-92. 
S. Walpole — History of England. 

L. Bardoux — La Bourgeoisie Frangaise, Paris 1890. 
/. Cretineau-Joly — Histoire de Louis Philippe et d'Or- 

leanism t I, Paris 1862. 
Dalling and Bulwer— The Monarchy of the Middle Classes, 

1838. 
A. Debidour — fitudes Critiques sur la Revolution, I'Empire 

et la Periode Contemporaine, Paris 1886. 
C. Girandeau — La Presse Periodique, Paris 1868. 
E. Regnault — Histoire de Huit Ans, 3 vols, Paris 1894. 
/. Tschernoff — Le Parti Republican en France, Paris 1901. 
A. Weill — Histoire du Parti Republicain en France, Paris 

1900. 
W. Barry — The Papacy and Modern Times, London 191 1. 

•175 



A. Dehidour — I'Eglise et I'fitat en France de 1789 a 1879, 

Paris 1911. 
Nielson — Geschichte der Papstums ein 19 Jahrhunderts ed, 

1902. 
Gams — Geschichte der Kirche, BerHn 1899. 
P. Thureau-Dangin — I'Eglise et I'Etat sous la Monarchic 

de Juillet, Paris 1880. 
/. Cretineau-Joly — Histoire de la Compagnie de Jesus, to. 

3 Paris 1889. 
Genin — Les Jesuits et I'Universite, Paris 1844. 
de Grandmaison — La Congregation, Paris 1889. 
Grimaud — Histoire de la Liberte de I'Enseignement, Paris 

ed. 1906. 
A. LeRoy-Beaulieu — Les Catholiques Liberaux de 1830 a 

nos Jours, Paris 1885. 

— Les Congregations Religeuses et 
I'Expansion de la France, Paris 1904. 

H. de Riancey — Histoire Critique de la Liberte da I'En- 
seignement en France to 2, Paris 1844. 
s.de Sacey — Varietes, (tH de la Reaction, Religieuse.) 
Georges Souruges — Regimes des Congregations en France, 

Paris ed. 1908. 
Bolton King — History of Italian Unity, vol I, London 1899. 
Poggi — History of Italy, vol. II. 
W. R. Thayer — Dawn of Italian Independence, 2 vols. N. Y. 

1892. 

B. Biographies, etc. : 

W. Bagelot — Beranger. 
R. Cruice — Life of Palmerston. 
N. Peyrat — Beranger et La Mennais, Paris 1862. 
W. R. Thayer — Life and Times of Cavour, vol. I, N. Y. 
1912. 

A. Bardoue — Guizot, Paris 1894. 
Je. de Crosals — Guizot, Paris 1898. 

B. Sarrans — Louis Philippe, Paris 1834. 

R. Rush — Louis Philippe, King of France, London 1849. 
LeG off— Thiers, 1898. 

de Masade — Thiers, Cinquante Annees d' Histoire Contem- 
poraine, Paris 1884. 

C. de Remusat — Paris ed. 1900. 
E. Zevort — Thiers, Paris 1892. 

P. Chocarne — Vie du Pere Lacordaire, Paris 1867. 
G. P. G. d'Haussonville — Lacordaire, Paris 1895. 
Foisset — Lacordaire, Paris 1870. 
Ledos — Lacordaire, Paris 1870. 



176 



H. Villard £tude Biographique et Critique sur le Pere 

Lacordaire, 1890. 
Mgr. Lagrange — Vie de Mgr. Dupanloup, Paris, 3 vols. 

1883-4. 
/. Bonnet — La Renaissance Catholique au Debut du XIX" 
Siecle, La Mennais et son ficole, Geneve 1905. 
Abhe Charles Boutard — La Mennais, Sa Vie et ses Oeuvres, 

2 vols. Paris 1908. 
Hon. W. Gibson — The abbe La Mennais and the Liberal 

Roman Catholic Movement in France, London 1899. 
P. A. R. Janet — La Philosophie de La Mennais, 1895. 
Christian Marechal — La Jeunesse de La Mennais, Paris 191 3. 
/. H. Newman — The Fall of La Mennais, London i860. 
G. Saint e-Foi — Souvenirs de Jeunesse 1828-35 La Mennais 

et son ficole, Paris 191 1. 
P. Lacaunet — Montalembert, Paris 1897. 
Vte de Meaux — Montalembert, Paris 1897. 
Mrs. Oliphant — Memoir of Montalembert, N. Y. 1872. 
P. A. R. D. Chaveau — F. Ozanam, Montreal 1887. 
Charles Huit — F. Ozanam, Paris ed. 1900. 
Lacordaire — Notice sur Ozanam, Paris 1855. 
C. A. Ozanam — Vie de Frederic Ozanam, Paris 1882. 
/. Laur — La Femme Chretienne au XIX* Siecle, 2 vols. 

Paris 1895. 
P. de Pontlevoy — Vie du R. P. de Ravignan, Paris i860. 
Pougeois — Life of Pius IX, Paris 1877-81. 

C. Magazine Articles, etc. : 

British Quarterly Review, vol 9. 

Contemporary Review, vol 9, M. Kaufman. 

Edinburgh Review, Feb. 1840. 

English Church Review, May-June, 19 15. 

Fortnightly Review, P. Downden, vol. II. W. S. Lilly, 

vol. 72. 
International Review, A. Langel, vol. 9. 
Living Age, vol. 6, 2y. 
Temple Bar Magazine, vol. 41. 
Revue des Deux Mondes 1842 and 1905 (Victor Giraud.) 



177 



APPENDIX I 

ACTE d'uNION 
I 

La partie spirituelle de la societe doit etre afranchie com- 
plement de I'intervention du Pouvoir politique. En 
consequence : 

1. La liberte de conscience et de culte doit etre entiere, 
de telle sorte que le Pouvoir ne s'immisce en avcune manere 
et sous aucun pretext, dans I'enseignement, la discipline et 
les ceremonies d'un culte. 

2. La liberte de la presse ne peut etre entravee par aucune 
mesure preventive, sous quelque forme que cette mesure se 
produise. 

3. La liberte d'education doit etre aussi complete que la 
liberte des cultes dont elle fait essentiellement partie, et que 
la liberte de la presse puisqu'elle n'est, comme celle-ci, qu'une 
forme de liberte meme de Tintelligence, et de la manifestation 
des opinions. 

II 

Par cela meme que la partie spirituelle de la Societe doit 
etre affranchise completement. Taction du pouvoir constitu- 
tionel ne peut s'exercer que dans I'ordre des interets materiel?, 
et dans cet ordre, nous admettons qu'il faut tendre a un etat 
de choses dans lequel toutes les affaires locales seront admini- 
strees en commun par ceux qui sont interesses, sou"^ 1^ pro- 
tection du pouvoir destine des lois uniquement, qi. elle qu'en 
soit la forme, a maintenir I'unite politique, I'hannonie entre 
les diverses administrations, particulieres, a pourvoir aux in- 
terets generaux et a la defense exterieure de I'Etat. 

Ill 

Et comme la societe, dont la justice est la base, ne peut 
faire des progres reels que par un plus grand developpement 
une application plus etendue de la loi de justice et de charite, 
nous admettons aussi que Ton doit tendre incessament a elever 
I'intelligence et a ameliorer la condition materielle des classes 
inferiueres, pour les faire participer de plus en plus aux 
avantages sociaux." 



179 




— A 













' u^.^!" /:^fe\ "^-..^ yMA\ x,^"" ^^^'- ' 






.0^ 



•4 ex 



.^" 



'-^^o 























LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



019 650 343 2 



■ :-■ i^.^^fl 



.■' n .f*jj 









v;,c;y 






